^                        PBINCETON,  N.  J.                       '^' 

1 

Shelf. 

BV    710    .R5    1899 
Rivington,    Luke,    1838-1899. 
The   Roman  primacy,    A.D.    430 
451 

1 

.  1 

THE    EOMAN    PEIMACY 

A.D.    430-451 


Nihil  obstat. 

Sydney  F.  Smith,  S.J. 

Imprimatur. 

Herbertus  Cardinalis  Vaughan 

Archiepiscopus  WestmonaslerieHsis 

7  Martii  1S99 


THE 


BOMAN     PBIMACY 


A.D.  430-451 


BY   THE 

/ 
EEV.  LUKE    KIVINGTON,  M.A.,  D.D. 

Formerly  Demy  of  Magdalen  College,  Oxford 


LONGMANS,     GREEN,     AND     CO. 

39    PATERNOSTER    ROW,    LONDON 

NEW    YORK    AND    BOMBAY 

1899 

All    rights    reserved 


PREFACE 


In  preparing  a  fresh  edition  of  my  book  on  The 
Primitive  Church  and  the  See  of  Peter,  which  I  hope 
to  publish  in  the  course  of  this  year,  I  became  convinced 
that  the  best  answer  to  many  difficulties  raised  against 
the  historical  proofs  of  Papal  Supremacy  and  Papal 
Infallibility  would  be  found  in  a  more  detailed  account 
of  some  one  crucial  passage  in  the  history  of  the  Church 
within  the  first  few  centuries.  Exposition  is  always, 
when  possible,  the  best  form  of  controversy ;  I  have 
therefore  selected  for  the  purpose  twentj^-one  years  in 
the  first  half  of  the  fifth  century  (a.d.  430-451)  and 
have  entered  into  considerable  detail  in  the  exposition 
of  this  important  episode  in  the  life  of  the  Church.  All 
that  appeared  on  this  period  in  The  Primitive  Church 
d'c.  has  been  rewritten,  with  the  exception  of  two  chap- 
ters, which  have  been  merely  retouched  and  illustrated 
by  their  historical  context.  The  greater  number  of  the 
chapters  are  entirely  new. 

My  reason  for  selecting  this  short  period  is  that 
within  those  twenty-one  years  three  Councils  of  peculiar 
interest  were  assembled  in  the  East,  two  of  which  count 
among  the  first  four  (Ecumenical  Councils,  and  the 
third,  which  met  between  these  two,  was  meant  to  be 


vi  PREFACE 

GEcumenical.  The  importance  of  the  two  first  mentioned 
is  quite  unique,  as  will  be  seen  from  the  following  con- 
siderations. 

In  the  Council  of  Ephesus  (a.d.  431)  we  have 
actually  the  first  (Ecumenical  assembly  of  which  the 
'  Acts ' — i.e.  the  transactions  of  the  various  sessions — have 
come  down  to  posterity.  This  alone  would  make  it  a 
matter  of  importance  to  study  the  history  of  that  Council 
with  peculiar  care. 

But,  further,  this  Council  at  Ephesus  was  concerned 
with  the  mystery  of  the  Incarnation  in  a  way  peculiar 
to  itself  and  to  the  Council  of  Chalcedon  in  451.  On 
these  two  occasions  the  Church  settled  for  all  time  two 
of  the  most  fundamental  points  in  regard  to  that 
mystery  of  our  holy  religion,  dealing  with  the  '  union  ' 
involved  in  the  assumption  of  our  nature  by  the  Eternal 
Word. 

Thus  in  these  two  Councils  we  have  our  first  clear 
sight  of  the  Church  in  her  combined  public  action  on  a 
large  scale,  and  that  action  was  concerned  with  the  funda- 
mental mystery  of  our  holy  faith.  History  here,  at  any 
rate,  must  have  a  peculiar  interest  for  us  Christians. 
Principles  which  are  found  embedded  in  the  Church  at 
this  era  must  have  had  their  origin  in  times  long 
anterior  ;  their  appearance  in  full  flower  and  fruit  points 
to  a  distant  past  to  which  their  roots  must  be  traced. 

Another  reason  for  selecting  this  episode  in  the 
history  of  the  Church  is  to  be  found  in  the  circumstances 
of  our  English  religious  life  at  this  present  hour. 
Everything  that  is  going  on  round  about  us  at  this 
moment  in  the  intellectual  and  religious  world  seems 
to   point    to    the   necessity   of   answering   one   crucial 


PEEFACE  Vll 

question :  If  there  is  a  body  of  truth  revealed  by  Christ 
for  the  permanent  welfare  of  our  race,  where  is  its 
guardian  ?  And  to  answer  this  question,  it  will  natur- 
ally be  asked,  Where  loas  its  guardian  in  the  past? 
The  Councils  of  Ephesus  and  Chalcedon  give  a  clear 
emphatic  answer  to  that  question.  The  guardianship  of 
the  faith  was  entrusted  to  the  Episcopate  of  the 
Catholic  Church,  of  which  the  head  was  the  successor  of 
Peter  m  the  See  of  Kome — and  this  by  divine 
institution.  The  relationship  of  that  See  to  the  uni- 
versal Church  cannot  be  seen  anywhere  more  clearly 
than  in  the  records  of  the  Council  of  Ephesus  in  431 
and  the  Council  of  Chalcedon  in  451.  Here,  when  the 
hour  of  supreme  trial  had  come,  the  Primacy  of  the 
Bishop  of  Eome  comes  before  us  as  a  well  established 
provision,  of  divine  institution,  for  the  welfare  of  the 
Churches. 

It  is  here,  therefore,  that  the  meaning  of  that 
Primacy — the  principles  on  which  it  was  obeyed,  if  it 
was  obeyed — ought  to  be  studied  with  especial  care.  If 
we  found  ourselves  in  a  system  which  plainly  contradicts 
those  principles,  we  should  have  ground  for  doubting 
our  inheritance  in  the  privileges  of  the  One  Body  of 
Christ,  and  in  the  sheltering  favour  of  the  One  Lord. 
This,  as  has  been  recently  stated  by  Professor  Sanday, 
was  admitted  by  those  who  took  part  in  the  religious 
changes  of  the  sixteenth  century.  *  It  was  agreed,'  says 
that  distinguished  writer,  '  that  the  practice  of  the 
Church  of  the  first  four  Councils — when  it  could  be 
ascertained — was  binding.'  ^  '  When  it  could  be 
ascertained ' — but    it   is   impossible   in   the   nature   of 

'  The  Conception  of  the  Priesthood,  p.  123. 


viii  PREFACE 

things  to  see  it  in  all  its  effective  power,  where  the 
records  are  wanting,  as  is  the  case  with  the  Councils  of 
Nicaea  and  Constantinople.  It  should,  therefore,  be 
studied  first  in  its  developed  form,  when  the  Church 
acted  as  a  whole  and  the  records  are  sufficiently  ample  to 
enable  us  to  see  the  relative  action  of  head  and  members 
in  the  ecclesiastical  body.  And  that  is  the  same  as 
saying,  begin  with  the  Council  of  Ephesus. 

The  principle  here  advocated  has  been  laid  down 
with  great  clearness  in  a  remarkable  article  in  the 
English  Historical  Beview  for  January  1899.  The 
writer  (the  Eev.  A.  C.  Headlam)  makes  this  important 
statement.  Speaking  of  the  best  method  of  avoiding  the 
uncertainty  caused  by  the  absence  of  conclusive  evidence 
and  of  limiting  the  personal  bias  in  our  pursuit  of  his- 
torical truth,  he  says  ;  '  One  method  may  be  suggested 
as  a  wise  one  to  pursue,  that  of  advancing  from  the 
known  to  the  unknown.  The  great  advance  in  the  study 
of  Eoman  constitutional  history  has  been  made  by 
working  back  from  the  known  and  developed  constitutions 
of  the  later  republican  and  imperial  time  to  the  earlier 
periods.  In  a  similar  way  the  only  true  method  for  the 
study  of  Church  history  is  to  start  from  the  developed 
constitution  and  work  back  to  the  earlier  period.' 

This  is  a  principle  which  will,  it  is  hoped,  commend 
itself  to  many  for  whom  this  book  is  written,  on  this 
additional  ground.  Many  now  believe  in  common  with 
ourselves  that  in  dealing  with  the  history  of  the  Church 
we  are  dealing  with  that  of  a  supernatural  entity  placed 
here  by  our  Divine  Kedeemer,  the  laws  of  whose  growth 
are  illustrated  by  that  of  the  human  body,  but  which  is 
in  every  stage  of  its  history  equally  a  divine  institution. 


PKEFACE  ix 

The  Church  could  never  as  a  whole  act  in  such  an 
episode  of  her  life  on  a  false  principle.  If  the  Primacy 
of  the  Bishop  of  Eome  was  recognised  as  of  divine 
institution  then,  it  must  have  been  always  such.  The 
Church  could  not  go  wrong  on  such  a  vital  matter  in 
the  very  act  of  settling  the  full  meaning  of  the  funda- 
mental mystery  of  the  Christian  religion — the  Holy 
Incarnation.  However  at  times  other  powers  may  have 
initiated  or  carried  on  her  work,  that  institution  must 
have  been  always  there,  as  the  background,  just  as 
while  prophets  and  teachers  came  to  the  front  in  early 
days,  the  Apostles  were  there,  the  final  authority,  though 
not  everywhere  and  always  conspicuous.  So  the  Primacy 
was  there,  and  its  substantial  repudiation  would  have  been 
an  offence  against  first  principles.  Neither  democratic 
Christianity  nor  episcopal  aristocracy  could  have  de- 
veloped into  the  ecclesiastical  monarchy  of  the  years 
between  a.d.  430  and  451. 

It  will  be  seen,  then,  from  a  close  study  of  this  period 
that  the  doctrine  of  the  Primacy  of  the  Roman  Pontiff 
was  sufficiently  developed  in  the  mind  of  the  Christian 
world  before  the  Council  of  Ephesus  in  431  to  enable  us 
to  say  that  the  guardianship  of  the  faith  lay  by  divine 
appointment,  not  merely  with  an  Episcopate,  but  with 
an  Episcopate  one  of  whose  number  was  the  inheritor  of 
peculiar  privileges  in  regard  to  jurisdiction  and  the 
security  of  his  official  teaching,  as  the  successor  of  the 
Prince  and  head  of  the  Apostolic  College. 

What  were  these  privileges  ?  Not  what  Mr.  Glad- 
stone is  pleased  to  describe  them  as  being,  when  he  tells 
us  that  the  Vatican  Council  '  lays  it  down  that  the  Pope 
is  never  to  be  resisted  in  any  matter,  by  any  persons, 


X  PEEFACE 

or  under  any  circumstance.'  ^  It  is  difficult  to  see  how 
the  Vatican  Council  could  have  taken  greater  precautions 
to  guard  against  such  an  idea  of  absolutism  as  attaching 
to  its  teaching.  Neither,  again,  are  the  Petrine  privileges 
as  declared  in  the  Vatican  decrees,  what  Dr.  Bright, 
Professor  of  Ecclesiastical  History  at  Oxford,  seems  to 
imagine  them  to  be.  Speaking  of  the  Vatican  definition, 
he  says  that  '  it  makes  the  Pope  practically  a  universal 
bishop,  holding  direct  power  in  and  over  every  single 
diocese,  so  that  the  several  diocesans  are,  in  effect,  no 
more  than  his  commissioners  and  vicars.'  ^  This  is  denied 
in  terms  m  the  Dogmatic  Constitution  of  the  Vatican 
Council  which  says  (cap.  iii.)  : 

'  So  far  is  this  power  of  the  Supreme  Pontiff  from 
being  opposed  to  that  ordinary  and  immediate  power  of 
episcopal  jurisdiction  with  which  the  Bishops,  who  being 
placed  by  the  Holy  Ghost  have  succeeded  to  the  place 
of  the  Apostles,  as  true  pastors  feed  and  govern  each 
their  several  flocks  assigned  to  them — that  the  same 
[power  of  Episcopal]  jurisdiction  is  asserted,  confirmed 
and  vindicated  by  the  supreme  and  universal  Pastor.' 

Such  is  the  authoritative  teaching  of  the  Vatican 
Council,  which  is  in  direct  contradiction  to  Dr  Bright's 
account  of  it.  And  it  is  equally  certain  that  Dr.  Bright's 
account  does  not  tally  with  the  facts  ;  it  is  not  true  in 
regard  to  the  actual  practice  of  the  Church.  The  actual 
relation  between  the  Pope  and  Apostolic  Vicars  who 
rule  over  certain  areas  before  the  formation  of  regular 
diocesan  jurisdiction  differs  enormously  from  the  rela- 
tion between  the  Pope  and  Diocesan  Bishops. 

'  Soliloquy  and  Postscript  {Later  Oleayiincjs,  p.  424). 
2  Waymarks  in  Church  History,  p.  207. 


PREFACE  xi 

The  fact  is  that  a  great  deal  of  recent  controversy 
falls  short  of  its  purpose  by  reason  of  the  assumption 
which  perpetually  underlies  it,  to  the  effect  that  the  rule 
of  the  Pope  is,  at  least  in  theory,  that  of  an  absolute 
monarch  in  the  full  sense  of  the  term  '  absolute.' ' 
Bellarmine  upbraided  Calvin  for  proceeding  upon  this 
assumption.  He  tells  him  that  the  Pope  himself  knows 
what  he  is  writing,  viz.  that  the  Koman  Pontiff  cannot 
change  the  doctrine  of  Christ  nor  institute  a  new 
worship  so  as  to  make  it  pass  for  divine  ;  and  that  God 
alone  reigns  and  legislates  without  a  superior.  He  alone 
destroys  and  saves  on  His  own  authority.  *  We  attribute 
none  of  these  things  to  the  Pope.'  - 

And  so  Pius  VII.  protested  that  a  Pope  recognises 
certain  limits  which  he  cannot  transgress  without 
betraying  his  conscience  and  without  abusing  the 
supreme  authority  entrusted  to  him  by  Jesus  Christ  for 
edification  and  not  for  destruction  ;  and  he  says  that 
even  in  matters  of  discipline  the  Popes  have  always 
observed  certain  limits  and  recognised  the  obligation 
not  to  admit  innovations  in  certain  matters  at  all,  and 
in  other  matters  only  when  most  weighty  and  imperative 
reasons  required  it.^ 

So  that  what  we  have  to  look  for  in  the  history  of 
the  early  Councils  is  the  proof,  not  of  an  absolutism 
which  pays  no  respect  to  contract,  usage,  rights,  and  the 

'  There  is,  of  course,  a  sense  in  which  the  Papacy  may  be  called  an 
absolute  monarchy  :  viz.  as  meaning  that  the  form  of  government  in  the 
Church  is  that  of  a  single  ruler.  This,  however,  is  not  what  is  meant  by 
those  who  speak  of  the  '  absolutism  '  of  the  Sovereign  Pontiff. 

2  De  Bom.  Pont.  iii.  19,  21. 

'  Cf.  Hettinger,  Die  kirchliche  Vollgeivalt  des  ajpostolischen  Stuhles, 
1.57. 


Xll  PREFACE 

welfare  of  the  community — the  Church  repudiates  such 
a  position  for  her  visible  head — but  of  a  full  supreme 
authority,  ordinary  {i.e.  attached  to  the  office)  and 
immediate  {i.e.  not  necessarily  through  intermediate 
authorities),  over  every  member  of  the  universal  Church, 
which  is;  however,  controlled  by  that  respect  for  laws 
once  established  by  previous  authority,  which  springs 
from  a  sense  of  duty  to  God  and  care  for  the  welfare  of 
the  Church. 

But  while  the  Sovereign  Pontiffs  repudiate  any  such 
'  autocracy '  as  Mr.  Gladstone  attributes  to  them,  or  any 
claim  to  be  '  universal  Bishop  '  in  the  sense  which  Dr. 
Bright  attaches  to  those  words, ^  it  is  certainly  held  that 
the  Pope  is  in  a  very  true  sense  above  ecclesiastical,  as 
distinguished  from  divine  laws.  Canons  have  no  coactive 
force  as  against  the  Popes.  While  the  Sovereign 
Pontiff  is  morally  bound  to  rule  the  Church  in  accord- 
ance with  the  decrees  and  laws  which  have  been 
recognised  as  part  of  Church  discipline  in  past  centuries, 
these  laws  impose  no  command  which  he  has  to  obey, 
by  divine  or  human  law  ;  as  he  is  the  highest  authority 
in  the  Church,  he  can  accept  no  rule  from  any  superior 
except  God  Himself.-  '  The  Pope,'  says  a  great  Canonist, 
'  is  the  highest  authority  in  the  Church,  and  as  such  he 
has  no  judge  over  him  externally  ;  for  the  use  he  makes 
of  his  power  he  is  responsible  to  God  only  and  his 
conscience,  just  as  temporal  monarchs  are  for  theirs.'  '^ 

Dr.  Bright,  in  his  Boman  See  in  the  Early  Church, 

'   Waymarks,  p.  207  ;  Roman  See  in  the  Early  Church,  p.  2. 
2  Cf.  Hettinger,  loc.  cit.  §  25,  and  Palmieri,  De  Rom.  Pont.  Pars  ii. 
cap.  1. 

^  Walter,  Kirchenrecht,  §  126, 


PREFACE  xiii 

p.  208,  comments  on  a  statement  by  the  present  writer 
that  a  king  is  bound  to  respect  the  laws,  *  not  because 
they  are  superior  to  him,  but  because  he  is  bound  by  the 
natural  and  divine  law  to  set  the  example,'  and  that  in 
the  same  way  the  Pope  is  bound  to  respect  the  canons, 
and  he  asks  the  question,  *  Has  submission  to  ecclesias- 
tical absolutism  made  Mr.  Eivington  forget  the  traditions, 
the  basal  ideas,  of  kingship  as  understood  by  English- 
men ?  He  may  consult  a  Roman  Catholic  historian  :  it 
was  part  of  Richard  II. 's  despotic  policy,  to  "  place  him- 
self above  the  control  of  the  law  "  (Lingard,  H.  Engl. 
iv.  255).' 

I  might  content  myself  with  replying  to  this  by  saying 
that  I  have  never  submitted,  nor  been  asked  to  submit, 
to  any  '  ecclesiastical  absolutism ' ;  but  it  seems  only 
right  to  protest  against  the  misuse  of  Dr.  Lingard's 
name  in  this  passage  and  also  against  the  assumption 
that  the  British  constitution  supplies  us  with  a  perfect 
ideal  of  kingship.  Dr.  Lingard  (as  the  next  lines  would 
have  shown  the  reader,  if  only  Dr.  Bright  had  quoted 
them)  is  speaking  of  King  Richard's  attempt  to  overthrow 
the  constitution  by  doing  away  with  the  action  of  Parlia- 
ment after  having  extorted  a  subsidy  for  life.  The 
only  parallel  (and  it  is  still  an  imperfect  parallel)  to  this 
would  be  the  case  of  a  Pope  proceeding  to  govern  the 
whole  Church  without  an  Episcopate.  But  this,  accord- 
ing to  the  Vatican  decree,  it  is  not  in  his  power  to  do. 
And  as  for  the  parallel  drawn  by  Dr.  Bright  between  the 
British  constitution  and  the  government  of  the  Church, 
it  must  be  borne  in  mind  that  that  constitution  is, 
indeed,  admirably  adapted  to  the  genius  of  the  British 
people,  but  is  not  on  that  account  a  model  form  of  king- 


XIV  PREFACE 

ship  nor  necessarily  adapted  for  the  purposes  for  which 
the  Church  exists.  Moreover,  Dr.  Bright's  own  estimate 
of  the  position  of  the  king  in  the  British  constitution  is 
not  that  of  most  Englishmen.  The  king  is  certainly 
with  us,  in  a  sense,  above  the  law ;  he  cannot  be  in- 
dicted for  its  violation  ;  though  he  may  be  induced  to 
resign  for  the  violation  of  the  natural  and  divine  law 
which  bids  him  care  for  the  welfare  of  his  people  and 
govern  them  according  to  the  principles  of  the  constitu- 
tion which  he  is  set  to  administer.  There  is  a  truth  in 
the  legal  maxim  that  '  the  king  can  do  no  wrong.' 

But  as  regards  the  particular  matter  at  issue,  viz.  the 
relation  of  the  Pope  to  the  ecclesiastical,  as  distinguished 
from  the  natural  and  divine,  law,  I  would  ask  whether 
the  Oxford  Professor  of  Ecclesiastical  History  has 
forgotten  the  immemorial  traditions,  the  basal  ideas,  of 
canon  law  in  the  Church  of  England  ?  These  cannot  be 
better  represented  than  by  the  great  Canonist,  universally 
accepted  as  such  by  the  Church  of  England,  William 
Lyndwood,  Official  Principal  of  the  Archbishop  of 
Canterbury's  Court,  prolocutor  of  the  clergy  in  the  Con- 
vocation of  Canterbury,  who  wrote  his  famous  book  on 
the  provincial  constitutions  of  the  Archbishop  of  Canter- 
bury in  the  early  part  of  the  fifteenth  century.  Lynd- 
wood was  not  an  absolutist  of  the  type  described  by 
Mr.  Gladstone  or  Dr.  Bright ;  he  held  that  there  were 
cases  in  which  the  Pope  might  be  rightly  resisted.  He 
mentions  just  such  a  case  as  that  about  which  Bishop 
Grosseteste  wrote  his  famous  letter  to  Innocent  the 
notary.^      Nevertheless   Lyndwood   lays    down   as    the 

'  Not,   as  Anglican  writers   suppose,  to    the    Pope,    Vvhose    name 
happened  to  be  Innocent  :  whence  the  confusion. 


PREFACE  XV 

unquestioned  teaching  of  the  Church  Catholic,  including 
the  Church  of  England,  that  the  Pope  '  is  above  the  law,' 
and  again,  '  is  not  subject  to  the  laws.'  ^ 

This,  however,  does  not  in  the  least  mean  as  Dr. 
Bright  understands  it  to  mean,  that  '  the  pope  is  more 
than  the  King,  he  is  the  autocrat,  of  the  Church ' ;  - 
neither  does  the  comparison  of  the  position  of  the  Pope 
with  that  of  the  Roman  Emperor  necessarily  imply  that 
his  methods  must  be  '  despotic'  ^  The  constitution  of  the 
Eoman  Empire  did  not  of  itself  involve  despotism, 
though,  being  of  the  earth,  it  readily  lent  itself  to  abuse 
in  that  direction  ;  neither  does  the  position  conceded  to 
the  Pope  in  the  Vatican  decrees  involve  despotic  action. 
The  relation  of  the  Emperor  to  the  laws  happens  to 
have  been  exactly  described  by  the  Imperial  Count 
Elpidius  at  Ephesus  in  449,  in  words  which  were  read 
at  the  Council  of  Chalcedon  :  '  the  Emperor  being  himself 
the  first  to  fulfil  the  order  of  the  laws,  of  which  he  is 
the  inventor  and  the  guardian.'  ^  He  was  not '  above  the 
law '  in  the  sense  of  being  under  no  obligation  to  observe 
it,  but  only  in  the  sense  of  being  responsible  to  God 
alone  for  his  observance  of  it,  when  it  touched  his  own 
life. 

What,  therefore,  we  might  expect  to  find  in  history 
is  a  certain  peculiarly  authoritative  guardianship  of  the 
canons  exercised  by  the  Supreme  Pontiff,  consistent, 
however,  with  an  appeal  to  them  as  the  ground  of  his 
action,  when  he  felt  it  impossible  under  the  circum- 
stances to  allow  their  observance   to  be  relaxed.     The 

'  Cf.  Professor  Maitland's  Canon  Law  in  the  Chtirch  of  England, 
pp.  16,  17  (1898). 

-  Roman  See,  p.  209.  ^  jj^^  4  Mansi,  vi.  645. 


xvi  PREFACE 

following  pages  will  show  how  far  this  attitude  on  the 
part  of  the  Pope  is  found  in  the  Council  of  Chalcedon 
and  recognised  as  part  of  his  office  by  the  Christian 
world. 

And,  as  regards  the  whole  argument,  I  have  one 
further  remark  to  make,  viz.  that  it  is  cumulative.  It 
seems  to  me  that  writers  like  Dr.  Bright  are  perpetually 
perpetrating  the  logical  '  fallacy  of  division.'  Let  any 
one  for  instance  take  the  letters  (given  below  :  see  Index) 
of  Flavian,  Anatolius,  Theodoret,  Eusebius  of  Dorylseum 
(all  Easterns),  and  St.  Peter  Chrysologus  of  Eavenna, 
written  independently  of  one  another,  and  all  within  so 
short  a  period,  and  ask  himself  whether  their  cumu- 
lative force  is  not  such  as  to  justify  the  statement  that 
the  Vatican  decrees  were  admitted  in  substance  in  a.d. 
451.  Would  not  the  fathers  of  the  Church  at  Chalce- 
don have  said  the  same  as  the  Anglo-Saxon  Church  said 
to  the  British  bishops  through  the  instrumentality  of 
St.  Aldhelm,  viz.  'In  vain  he  emptily  boasts  of  the 
Catholic  faith  who  follows  not  the  teaching  and  rule  of 
Peter '  ?  Would  they  not  have  said  the  same  as  the 
Archbishop  of  Canterbury  and  his  suffragans  said  in 
1318  to  the  Bishop  of  Eome,  '  We,  though  unworthy, 
being  included  in  your  pastoral  charge,  and  ourselves 
derived,  as  rivers  from  the  fountainhead,  from  the  exalted 
throne  of  the  Holy  Apostolic  See  '  ?  ^  Would  not  the 
Chalcedonian  fathers  have  said  exactly  what  the  Arch- 
bishop of  Canterbury  and  his  suffragans  said  a  hundred 
years  later,  in  1412,  when  having  condemned  Sir  John 
Oldcastle  for  denying  the  Supremacy  of  the  See  of  Peter, 

•  Registers  of  John  de  Sandale  and  Bigaud  de  Asserio,  preface  by 
the  editor,  Joseph  Baigent,  1897. 


PREFACE  xvii 

the  Sacrament  of  Penance,  and  Transubstantiation,  they 
sent  their  condemnation  to  the  Sovereign  Pontiff,  with 
these  words :  '  This  is  that  most  blessed  See,  which 
is  proved  never  to  have  erred,  by  the  grace  of 
Almighty  God,  from  the  path  of  Apostolical  tradition, 
nor  has  it  ever  been  depraved  and  succumbed  to  heretical 
novelties.  But  sh^t  is  to  whom,  as  being  mistress  and 
teacher  of  other  Churches,  the  surpassing  authority  of  the 
fathers  ordained  that  the  greater  causes  of  the  Church, 
especially  those  touching  articles  of  the  faith,  should  be 
referred  for  their  final  settlement  and  declaration '  ?  * 
In  other  words,  would  not  the  fathers  of  Chalcedon  have 
endorsed  the  principle  embodied  in  the  canon  law  of 
England  in  these  words,  *  He  is  called  a  heretic  who  out 
of  contempt  of  the  Koman  Church  neglects  to  keep  what 
the  Roman  Church  ordains  '  ?  ^ 

And  all  this  is  exactly  what  is  taught  by  the 
Constitiitio  Dogmatica  in  the  Vatican  decrees. 

I  have,  in  conclusion,  to  thank  the  Prior  of  the 
Archives  at  Monte  Cassino  for  kindly  sending  me  a 
copy  of  his  Dissertation  on  '  St.  Leo  and  the  East,'  ^ 
containing  a  copy  of  the  important  letters  from  Flavian 
and  Eusebius  to  St.  Leo,  which  he  discovered  in  the 
Archives  at  Novara.  These  letters  have  not  as  yet 
appeared  in  any  English  work  on  the  Council  of 
Chalcedon.  The  light  they  throw  on  the  subject  of 
appeals  to  Rome  is  considerable.^  There  is  one  point  in 
the  translation  of  Flavian's  letter  which  is  rendered 
differently  by  the  venerable  doyen  of  Catholic  apologists 

'  Wilkins,  Concilia,  iii.  350.         ^  Maitland,  op.  cit.  p.  17,  note  *. 
'  S.  Leone  Magno  e  V  Oriente.  *  See  infra,  p.  167. 

a 


XVlll  PEEFACE 

in  Germany,  Father  Wilmers,  S.  J.  He  understands 
Flavian  to  ask  St.  Leo  to  *  give  the  type '  for  the  new 
(Ecumenical  Synod  hy  republishing  his  Tome.^  His 
translation  depends  on  a  reading  in  the  Codex  which 
has  been  emended  by  Mommsen  and  Amelli.  Father 
Wilmers  is,  however,  correct  so  far  as  the  manuscript 
is  concerned ;  and  while  I  have  preferred  the  emenda- 
tion, it  seems  worth  while  to  mention  the  opinion  of  so 
eminent  a  writer. 


Note. 

It  will  be  noticed  that  the  name  of  Dr.  Bright  occurs  very  fre- 
quently in  the  following  pages,  though  chiefly  in  the  notes.  That 
writer  has  thrown  down  a  gauntlet  which  it  has  seemed  impossible 
not  to  take  up.  In  the  case  of  a  '  recent  proseWte,'  he  considers 
that  the  '  Eoman  spirit,'  when  it  '  dominates '  him,  '  absorbs  all 
other  considerations  into  the  supreme  necessity  of  making  out  a 
case  for  Rome.'  -  Also  his  accusations  against  St.  Leo,  and  against 
the  Papal  legates,  in  spite  of  the  bias  which  they  too  manifestly 
betraj',  seem  to  require  an  answer,  owing  to  Dr.  Bright's  position 
as  Regius  Professor  of  Ecclesiastical  History  at  Oxford.  But  I 
have  also  felt  that  in  giving  an  answer  to  Dr.  Bright's  numerous 
criticisms  in  that  work,  I  am  dealing  with  the  line  of  argument 
generally  adopted  by  Anglican  writers.  There  can  be  no  danger  of 
misrepresenting  their  case  when  given  in  the  words  of  Dr.  Bright, 
who  is  its  selected  champion,  and,  I  am  bound  to  say,  its  ablest 
representative.  Accordingly,  while  refraining  from  any  such  gross 
imputations  as  Dr.  Bright  has  indulged  in,  I  have  carefully 
examined  his  statements,  in  the  notes,  almost  one  by  one. 

I  am,  however,  in  hopes  that  such  readers  as  are  not  conversant 
with  the  Greek  language  will  not  be  deterred  by  the  frequent 
occurrence  of  Greek  characters  in  the  notes.  Such  wiU  find,  I 
venture  to  think,  enough  of  interesting  matter  in  the  text  t©  repay 
their  perusal  of  the  following  pages.  They  can  leave  the  notes 
alone. 

'  Hist,  de  la  Religion,  Anth.  Tr.  1898,  §  136. 

2  Roman  See  in  the  Early  Church,  p.  211. 


PREFACE  XIX 

I  have  also  thought  it  well  to  include  an  answer  to  Professor 
Harnack's  treatment  of  the  Councils  of  Ephesus  and  Chalcedon,  in 
his  Dogmengeschichte.  The  detailed  accounts  of  the  Latrociniuvi 
and  of  Dioscorus's  trial  at  Chalcedon  (pp.  150-250)  were  written 
especially  with  the  view  of  meeting  what  seems  to  me  a  very  un- 
just and  unhistorical  estimate  of  these  Councils. 


LUKE  RIVINGTON. 


62  Manchester  Street,  London,  W- 
Eastei\  1899. 


AUTHORITIES 

For  the  sake  of  those  who  desire  to  go  further  into  the  history  of  the 
important  period  dealt  with  in  the  following  pages,  I  subjoin  the  names 
of  a  few  of  the  authorities  whom  I  have  found  most  useful. 

1,  Marius   Mercator,   Scripta  ad  Nestorianam  hceresim  pertinentia. 

Among  these,  especially  Nestorii  blasphemiorum  capitula,  and 
Synodus  Ephesitm  adversus  Nestorium.  According  to  Gamier, 
these  two  works  were  translated  into  Latin  by  Marius  Mercator 
in  the  very  year  of  the  Council  (431). 

Also,  Father  Garnier's  (S.J.)  two  Dissertations,  De  hceresi  et 
libris  Nestorii,  and  De  Synodis  Jiabitis  in  causd  Nestoriand,  are 
invaluable. 

All  these  are  to  be  found  in  Migne's  Patrologice  Cursus 
Computus,  vol.  48. 

2,  S.  CcELESTiNi    I.  Pap^   EpistolcR  et    Decreta :  ibid.  vol.  49,  or  in 

Coustant's  edition  in  the  Bibl.  Vett.  Patruin. 

3,  Mansi,  Sacrorum  Conciliorum  Collectio  (Florence,  1761),  vols,  iv.-vii. 

It  is  necessary  for  the  student  not  merely  to  read,  but  to  study 
these  four  volumes.  There  are  Greek  words  which  will  only  be 
understood  by  means  of  such  close  study.  In  regard  to  the 
Council  of  Ephesus,  two  documents  must  be  particularly  noticed, 
which  are  not  to  be  found  in  all  the  Collections  of  the  Councils, 
viz.  the  Roman  Council  under  Celestine  in  a.d.  430  (iv,  547),  and 
the  Commonitorium  of  Celestine  to  his  legates  (iv.  556).  Harnack's 
account  {Hist,  of  Dogma,  iv.  183,  Tr.)  of  Celestine's  action  is 
absolutely  disposed  of  by  the  former ;  and  a  great  deal  of  Dr. 
Bright's  contention  is  pulverised  by  the  latter  (cf.  infra,  p.  66). 

4,  Christianus  Lupus,  Synodorum  Generalium  ac  Provincialium  Decreta 

et  Canones  (Brussels,  1673),  vol.  i.  It  would  be  difficult  to  over- 
estimate the  value  of  Lupus's  work.  His  references  are,  un- 
fortunately, to  editions  now  out  of  date,  but  on  verifying  the 
quotations  in  Mansi  and  elsewhere,  I  have  found  them  almost 
uniformly  accurate.     He  is  particularly  valuable  in  giving  the 


AUTHORITIES  XXI 

salient  points,  and  the  scenery,  so  to  speak,  of  the  drama  (for  such 
it  was)  of  the  three  Councils  described  in  this  volume. 

5.  Natalis  Alexander,  Histcrria  Ecclesiastica,  vol.  ix.    Natalis  never 

shirks  a  difficulty,  though  in  his  original  work  he  does  not  always 
solve  them  satisfactorily.  But  his  is  a  work  which  the  student 
will  do  well  to  have  always  at  his  side.  Only  he  must  be  read  in 
the  great  edition  by  Roncaglia,  with  the  '  Animadversions '  of 
Mansi,  published  at  Bingen  {i.e.  Bingii  ad  Khenum),  1786.  These 
'  Animadversions,'  and  the  accompanying  notes,  by  Mansi,  are  in- 
comparably the  best  pieces  of  writing  on  many  of  the  difficulties 
raised  by  non-Catholics  on  the  history  of  the  Councils  of  Ephesus 
and  Chalcedon.  Hurter  in  his  Nomendator  Literarms,  iii.  101, 
calls  Mansi  '  the  most  celebrated  of  all  at  that  whole  epoch,  and 
one  who  deserved  superlatively  well  of  the  Church  and  literature.' 

6.  Alphonsus  Muzzakelli  (S.J.),   De   Aiictoritate   Roinani  Pontificis 

(Ghent).  There  is  no  date  to  this  valuable  work.  But  Padre 
Muzzarelli  accompanied  Pius  VII.  to  Paris  in  1809,  and  died  there 
in  1813.  Being  in  the  midst  of  Galileans,  he  wrote  two  or  three 
works  on  Papal  Infallibility,  of  which  the  one  from  which  I  have 
quoted  in  this  book  was  the  fullest.  His  references  are  very 
scanty,  but  I  verified  the  quotations  and  found  them  universally 
correct.  The  great  value  of  his  work  consists  in  its  clear  and 
complete  refutation  of  Bossuet. 

7.  Petrds  de  Marca,  Archbishop  of  Paris,  De  concordia  Sacerdotii  et 

Imperii  (Roboreti,  1742).  A  great  work,  most  useful  for  its  facts, 
but  perversely  illogical  on  the  subject  of  Gallican  liberties. 

8.  Ballerini  Fratres,  S.  Leonis  Magni  Opera,  3  vols.  (Venice,  1753)- 

A  magnum  opus  indeed,  quite  indispensable  for  the  history  of  the 
Council  of  Chalcedon.  Their  '  Observations  '  on  Quesnel's  Disser- 
tations are  masterpieces  of  erudition  and  logic. 

9.  TiLLEMONT,  M&moires  pour  servir  pour  VHistoire.     A  monument  of 

diligence,  and  of  immense  value  even  to  those  who  differ  from  his 
deductions.  Tillemont's  work  is  marred  by  lack  of  judgment, 
owing  to  his  determined  Jansenism.  Duchesne,  speaking  of  the 
value  of  this  work,  says  that  it  is  easy  '  ^carter  ses  preoccupations 
doctrinales.'  When  this  is  done,  it  is  impossible  to  speak  too 
highly  of  his  work  ;  but  unfortunately  it  is  exactly  where  his 
prepossessions  have  most  swayed  his  judgment  that  he  has  been 
followed  by  our  Anglican  friends.  For  a  good  estimate  of  Tille- 
mont  see  Hurter's  Nomendator  Literarius,  ii.  465.  He  quotes 
Schiiz,  who  calls  Tillemont  '  theologaster  semi-Catholicus  vel 
Jansenianus.' 


xxii  AUTHORITIES 

10.  Heegenbother,  Photius,  and  Kirchengeschichte,  Erster  Zeitraum, 

zweite  Periode.  Hergenrother's  work  is  sound  and  thorough. 
His  History  of  the  Church  may  be  read  in  a  French  translation 
of  exceptional  merit,  with  additional  notes  by  Belet.  The  portion 
which  embraces  the  period  covered  by  this  book  will  be  found  in 
vol.  ii.  312-692. 

11.  Bernakdus  Jungmann,  Dissertationes  Selectee  in  Histoi-iam  Ecclesi- 

asticam,  tom.  i.  and  ii.  (Eatisbon,  NewYork  and  Cincinnati,  1880). 
A  work  of  pre-eminent  value  owing  to  the  admirable  selection  of 
'  points  '  and  to  the  soundness  of  the  author's  judgment.  On  the 
period  covered  by  this  book,  Jungmann's  work  is  of  special  value 
as  containing  the  best  refutation  of  Mgr.  Maret's  '  Du  Concile 
General.' 

12.  Paul  Bottalla  (S.J.),  The  Pope  and  the  Church,  Pt.  II.  (Burns  and 

Gates,  1870).  An  admirable  summary  of  the  arguments  usually 
adduced  in  favour  of  the  Catholic  doctrine  concerning  '  the  Pope 
and  the  Council.' 

Other  writers,  to  whom  the  present  writer  is  indebted — besides  the 
older  sources,  such  as  Socrates,  Sozomen  and  Theodoret— are  Zaccharia, 
Palma,  and  Palmieri.  And  a  careful  perusal  of  Evagrius  Scholasticus  is 
to  be  recommended  for  the  sake  of  gaining  a  command  of  Byzantine 
Greek  such  as  was  spoken  at  the  Councils  dealt  with  below. 

The  reader  is  referred  to  p.  150  infra  for  special  authorities  on  the 
Latrocinium  or  Robber-Synod. 


CONTENTS 


PAGB 

THE  COUNCIL  OF  EPHESUS,  a.d.  431 1 


THE  LATEOCINIUM,  OK  ROBBER- SYNOD,  a.d.  449       .        .     119 
THE  COUNCIL  OF  CHALCEDON,  a.d.  451  .        .    197 


Part  I. 
THE   COUNCIL   OF   EPHESUS,   a.d.  431 


Chapter    I.  Eoiie  Defines,  and  Delegates  Cyril,  p.  3 

II.  Nestorius  works  for  a  General  Council,  p.  24 

III.  The  Presidency  and  Functions  of  the  Council,  p.  34 

IV.  The  Degradation  of  Nestorius,  p.  46 
V.  John  of  Antioch,  p.  59 

"VI.  The  See  of  Peter  '  Confirming  the  Brethren,'  I.,  p.  65 
VII.  „  „  „  IL,p.  75 

VIII.  The  Emperor  and  the  Monk,  p.  90 

IX.  John  of  Antioch  Condemned,  p.  95 

X.  Two  Decrees  of  the  Council  : 

1.  The  Use  of  the  Nicene  Creed,  p.  104 

2.  The  Independence  of  Cyprus,  p.  110 


NOTES 


On  the  meaning  o    tvjtos,  p.  21 

On  Theodosius  s  prohibition  of  Kaivoronia.,  p.  32 

On  the  Council's  use  of  KareneLx^evTes,  p.  57 

On  Dr.  Bright's  interpretation  of  Celestine's  Letter,  p.  72 

Dr.  Bright  versus  Mansi,  p.  87 


B 


PABT  I 


CHAPTEK  I 

ROME   DEFINES,   AND   DELEGATES   CYBIL 

A  PECULIAR  importance  attaches  to  the  Council  of  Ephe- 
sus  from  an  historical  point  of  view,  from  the  fact  that 
it  is  the  first  of  the  (Ecumenical  Councils  of  which  we 
have  anything  like  ample  records.^ 

The  Council  was  concerned  with  the  question  of  the 
union  between  the  two  natures  in  the  One  Divine  Person 
of  our  Eedeemer.  Was  it  a  substantial  or  an  accidental 
union  ?  Was  He  who  was  crucified  on  Calvary  the  Lord 
of  Glory :  and  is  His  blood,  what  St.  Paul  calls  it  (Acts 
XX.  28),  the  Blood  of  God  ?  Is  the  Flesh  which  gives 
life  to  those  who  partake  of  It,  the  very  Flesh  of  God 
Himself  by  a  Hypostatic  Union  ?  Or  is  the  relation- 
ship between  the  Sacred  Humanity  and  the  Person  of 
the  Eternal  Son  merely  that  of  a  close  union  between  a 

'  The  records  of  the  Council  are  in  places  mutilated,  and  the  whole 
account  of  the  proceedings  in  regard  to  the  Pelagians  is  missing. 
St.  Gregory  the  Great,  who  (when  at  Constantinople)  investigated  the 
matter,  attributed  this  to  the  Eastern  love  of  forgery  and  tampering 
with  documents  {Epp.  lib.  iv.  5,  ad  Narsen).  The  account  of  the  gixth 
session  should  be  read  in  the  old  Latin  edition  published  in  Mansi's 
fifth  volume.  And  the  account  of  the  Koman  Synod  in  430  must  be 
supplemented  by  Baluze's  Fragment  in  Mansi,  iv.  548. 

B  2 


4  THE   COUNCIL  OF   EPHESUS 

created  personality  and  the  Uncreated  Word?  The 
whole  question  of  the  world's  salvation  hung  upon  the 
answer.' 

Both  St.  Celestine  the  Pope,  and  St.  Cyril,  the 
champion  of  the  orthodox  faith,  emphasise  this  fact.^ 
St.  Celestine,  in  his  letter  to  Nestorius,  says  that  *  we 
complain  that  those  words  have  been  removed  [by 
Nestorius]  which  promise  us  the  hope  of  all  life  and 
salvation.'  St.  Cyril  again  and  again  strikes  the  same 
note.  Dr.  Salmon  would  have  done  well  to  have 
remembered  this  in  his  criticisms  on  this  great 
champion  of  the  faith.^ 

Up  to  the  time  of  the  Council  of  Ephesus  expressions 
had  been  used  concerning  the  union  of  the  two  natures 
in  Christ  which  were  meant  in  an  orthodox  sense,  but 
which  were  liable  to  misinterpretation.  St.  Ignatius  had 
spoken  of  Christ  as  '  bearing  flesh  ; '  Tertullian  had 
described  Him  as  '  clothed  with  flesh  ; '  and  the  early 
Fathers  had  sometimes  used  the  word  '  mixture  '  (fcpdacs) 
of  the  union  of  the  two  natures. 

But  a  term  had  been  in  use  which,  if  rightly  under- 
stood, safeguarded  the  truth  as  to  the  union  (svoxtls)  of 
the  two  natures.  I  mean,  of  course,  the  term  Ssotoko^, 
or  Mother  of  God,  as  applied  to  our  Blessed  Lady.  This 
term  had  not  been  as  thoroughly  sifted,  and  authorita- 

*  St.  Cyril  called  the  union  eVoxrts  (pvaiK^,  a  substantial  union  ;  by 
which  he  did  not  mean,  as  he  clearly  explained,  a  union  ending  in  one 
nature  {els  jxiav  cpvaiv),  but  a  union  that  constituted  one  Being,  in  opposi- 
tion to  the  only  union  admitted  by  Nestorians— viz.  a  purely  moral  and 
external  one.  Cyril  distinguished  between  the  two  natures  in  the  One 
Person,  but  he  did  not  separate  them  so  as  to  teach  that  they  had  any 
existence  after  the  Incarnation  separate  from  the  Personality  of  the 
Word. 

2  Mansi,  iv.  1049.         ^  Infallibility  of  the  Church,  p.  312  (2nd  ed.). 


ROME   DEFINES  5 

tively  explained  by  the  Church,  as,  owing  to  the  heresy 
of  Nestorius  it  was  destined  to  be ;  but,  as  the  Patriarch 
of  Antioch  bade  Nestorius  reflect,  it  had  been  in  frequent 
use.^ 

Nestorius  had  entered  upon  his  career  as  archbishop 
with  the  boast  that  if  the  emperor  would  give  him  the 
earth  cleared  of  heretics,  he  would  give  him  heaven 
in  exchange,  and  that  if  His  Imperial  Majesty  would 
assist  him  in  putting  heretics  to  rout,  he  would  assist  him 
to  do  the  same  with  his  Persian  foes.  He  was  inex- 
cusably cruel  to  his  heterodox  subjects,  but  he  soon  him- 
self plunged  into  a  heresy  which  cut  at  the  root  of  the 
Christian  faith — attributing  to  our  Divine  Lord  a  human 
personality,  and  thereby  denying  the  substantial  union 
between  the  two  natures.  His  writings  found  their  way 
into  Egypt,  which  was  in  the  patriarchate  of  Alexandria. 

The  see  of  Alexandria  held  a  peculiar  position  in 
the  East  at  this  time.  It  was  the  see  of  Athanasius, 
and  identified  with  the  championship  of  orthodoxy  on 
the  subject  of  the  Incarnation.  The  Bishop  of  Alex- 
andria was  the  gi-eatest  person  in  Egypt ;  -  he  had  at 
least  a  hundred  bishops  who  gave  him  an  enthusiastic 
allegiance ;  he  had  at  his  disposal  an  enormous  body  of 
monks,  '  now  in  the  springtide  of  popularity  and  power,' 
to  whom  the  name  of  Athanasius  was  as  magic.  Alex- 
andria itself  was  almost  synonymous  with  intellectual 
primacy ;  it  had  been  the  home  of  Clement  and  Origen, 

'  It  is  much  to  be  regretted  that  in  the  English  translation  of 
Bishop  Hefele's  Concilien-GesMchte,  published  by  Messrs.  Clark,  of 
Edinburgh,  the  word  ©ioroKos  is  invariably  translated  '  God-bearer,' 
which  is  an  equivocal  term,  as  it  might  equally  be  the  translation  of 
®eo(p6pos,  the  very  term  which  Nestorius,  through  his  heresy,  would  have 
liked  to  substitute  for  (deoT6Kos. 

-  Cf.  Duchesne,  Eglises  s^par^es,  pp.  190,  191. 


6  THE   COUNCIL   OF   EPHESUS 

and  was  now  the  source  of  the  correct  calculations  for 
the  Paschal  feast.  It  had  its  representative  at  the 
Court  of  Constantinople,  and  its  numerous  subjects  in 
that  city  engaged  in  the  sale  of  the  corn  that  was 
regularly  shipped  thither  from  the  granaries  of  Egypt. 
The  see  of  Alexandria  had,  too,  a  past  of  rivalry  and 
contention  with  the  bishops  of  the  Byzantine  capital. 
The  Bishop  of  Alexandria  (Cyril)  was  at  this  time  a 
man  of  commanding  disposition,  great  intellectual 
power,  and  immense  zeal.  Whatever  may  have  been 
his  faults  in  the  past  (about  which  there  has  been  much 
discussion),  he  was  destined  to  take  his  place  in  the 
Calendar  of  the  Church,  and  to  leave  behind  him  an 
heirloom  of  theological  exposition  on  the  subject  of  the 
Incarnation  which  she  has  cherished  for  more  than 
fourteen  centuries. 

It  is  certain  that  Nestorius's  writings  had  created 
an  interest,  not  to  say  excitement,  in  Egypt  itself,  in  the 
great  monasteries  that  clustered  there.  St.  Cyril  was, 
in  consequence,  bound  to  take  notice  of  the  danger ;  and 
a  correspondence  ensued  between  him  and  Nestorius. 
At  length  he  remanded  the  whole  matter  to  the  care  of 
the  Bishop  of  Eome :  a  step  from  which  he  had  held  off 
as  long  as  he  could,  but  at  last  (he  says)  he  felt  it  to  be 
his  plain  duty  to  forward  to  Celestine  the  whole  corre- 
spondence. 

St.  Celestine,  to  judge  from  his  letters,  was  a  man 
full  of  zeal  for  the  faith,  and  of  great  piety  and  tender- 
ness of  heart ;  Dr.  Wordsworth,  of  Lincoln,  appeals  to 
him  as  the  best  judge  of  Cyril's  character  and  conduct, 
although  he  underrates  his  share  in  the  affair  of 
Nestorius.  He  says :  *  Perhaps  there  could  not  have 
been  a   more   impartial  judge  of    the  parties   in   the 


ROME   DEFINES  7 

struggle  than  the  Bishop  of  Eome.  Celestine  was  a 
calm  spectator  of  the  controversy,  and  m  a  review  of  it 
it  may  be  well  to  enumerate  his  letters  as  indicative  of 
his  bearing  with  regard  to  it,  and  also  as  a  summary 
of  its  history.'  ^ 

We  shall  presently  see  that  St.  Celestine  was  not 
exactly  a  mere  *  spectator  of  the  controversy,'  and  that 
his  letters  do  not  bear  out  Dr.  Wordsworth's  general 
review  of  the  Council.  But  that  writer  shows  a  true 
instinct  in  taking  the  Pope's  estimate  of  St.  Cyril,  in 
preference  to  that  of  the  latter's  enemies,  whom  Dr. 
Salmon  and  Dr.  Bright  follow.^  '  The  Bishop  of  Eome,' 
says  Dr.  Wordsworth,  '  did  not  suppose  Cyril  to  have  been 
actuated  by  any  unworthy  motives  in  this  controversy.' 
In  this  matter  Dr.  Pusey  is  at  one  with  Dr.  Words- 
worth.^ 

Celestine,  on  being  appealed  to  by  Cyril,  summoned  a 
Synod  of  those  bishops  who  happened  to  be  in  Eome  at 
the  time,  and  carefully  investigated  the  matter  at  several 
sessions.'*  The  result  was  that  Celestine  renewed  the 
anathemas  of  his  predecessor  Damasus  against  those 
who  assert  that  there  are  two  Sons  of  God,  *  One  Who 
was  begotten  of  the  Father  before  the  ages,  and  another 
who  was  born  of  the  Virgin  .  .  .  and  who  do  not  con- 
fess that  the  same  Son  of  God  both  before  and  after 
the  Incarnation  is  Christ  our  Lord,  the  Son  of  God 
Who  was  born  of  the  Virgin.'  He  condemned  Nestorius 
for  avoiding  the  word  '  oneness  '  {hwais)  and  using  the 

'  Wordsworth's  Church  History,  iv.  232-3. 

^  Infallibility  of  the  Church,  p.  312,  and  Waymarks  of  Church  Hist. 
by  W.  Bright,  pp.  150-158. 

3  Pref.  to  St.  Cyril's  Minor  Works,  Lib.  of  the  Fathers. 
*  Cf.  Cyril's  letter  to  John  of  Antioch,  Mansi,  iv.  1052. 


8  THE   COUNCIL   OF  EPHESUS 

word  '  conjunction  '  {(rvvd(f)sta) — the  latter  indicating 
only  an  external  union  {qua  nempe  connectitur  qui 
exterius  adhceret)  —in  other  words,  he  defined  that  the 
union  was  Hypostatic,  of  substance  with  substance  in  a 
single  Personality,  not  of  person  with  Person. 

Further,  the  Pope  quoted  the  Hymn  of  St.  Ambrose, 
and  commenting  on  the  line  Talis  decet  partus  Deum 
{'  Such  a  birth  befits  God  '),  he  set  his  seal  on  the  word 
SsoroKos  (Mother  of  God),  quoting  the  Greek  word 
itself.^ 

Having  thus  defined  the  matter  of  faith,  Celestine 
wrote  to  Cyril  and  gave  his  decision  on  Nestorius.  He 
must  withdraw  his  objection  to  the  word  SsoroKoSf  or  be 
deposed  and  excommunicated ;  and  Cyril  was  to  act  for 
the  Bishop  of  Kome  in  regard  to  the  sentence  on 
Nestorius,  if  he  proved  refractory,  and  also  to  provide 
for  the  government  of  the  Church  in  Constantinople.^ 

So  far  St.  Cyril's  action  towards  Nestorius  had  been 
an  office  of  charity,  not  an  act  of  jurisdiction.  He  had 
not  thought  that  he  would  do  well  even  to  excom- 
municate him  from  his  own  Church  without  consulting 
Celestine,  although  he  says  he  might  legitimately  have 
done  that  much.  When  he  wrote  to  the  Egyptian 
monks  he  was  writing  to  people  within  his  own  juris- 
diction, but  he  had  now  laid  the  matter  before  one  who 
could  deal  with  cases  that  concerned  the  whole  Church, 
and  with  the  question  of  deposition  as  well  as  excom- 
munication.^    The  correspondence  that  passed  between 

*  Mansi,  iv.  548-552.  This  invaluable  fragment  of  Celestine's  speech 
at  the  Synod  was  first  published  by  Baluze,  and  is  apt  to  be  overlooked 
through  its  being  separated  in  Mansi  from  the  collection  of  documents 
bearing  directly  on  the  Council  of  Ephesus. 

'  Ibid.  1018.  ^  Cf.  Antifebronius  vindicatus,  pt.  i.  606. 


KOME   DEFINES  9 

Alexandria  and  Eome  on  this  occasion  is,  however,  so 
important  that,  at  the  cost  of  repetition,  I  will  give  a 
summary  of  the  two  letters.^ 

St.  Cyril  begins  with  giving  his  reason  for  breaking 
the  silence  which  he  had  kept  as  long  as  he  dared. 
The  ancient  customs  of  the  Churches  (he  says)  persuade 
us  to  communicate  such  matters  to  your  Holiness ;  I, 
therefore,  wTite  of  necessity.-  Nestorius  (he  says)  from 
the  commencement  of  his  episcopate  has  been  dissemi- 
nating among  his  own  people,  and  the  strangers  who 
flock  to  Constantinople  from  all  quarters,  absurd  ideas, 
contrary  to  the  faith.  He  (Cyril)  has  therefore  sent 
Nestorius's  homilies  to  Celestine.  It  was  in  his  mind  to 
tell  Nestorius  at  once  that  he  could  no  longer  hold  com- 
muni6n  with  him  ;  but  he  thought  it  better  to  hold  out 
to  him  a  helping  hand  first  and  exhort  him  by  letters. 
Nestorius,  however,  only  tried  in  every  way  to  circum- 
vent him.  At  last  a  bishop,  named  Dorotheus,  ex- 
claimed in  Nestorius's  presence,  'If  anyone  shall  call 
Mary  the  mother  of  God,  let  him  be  anathema.'  A 
crisis  was  reached  by  this  expression  ;  a  great  disturb- 
ance arose  among  the  people  of  Constantinople.  With 
few  exceptions  they  refrained  from  communion — nearly 
all  the  monasteries  and  great  part  of  the  senate — for 
fear  of  receiving  harm  to  their  faith.  He  had  found, 
moreover,  that  Nestorius's  writings  had  been  introduced 

'  Mansi,  iv.  1011,  seq. 

-  St.  Cyril  speaks  of  the  Pope  as  bis  '  fellow  minister,'  from  which 
expression  Dr.  Bright  {Roman  See,  p.  145)  argues  that  '  he  regards  the 
Bishop  of  Eome  as  privivs  inter  pares  '  in  the  Anglican  sense.  But 
what  follows  decides  the  sense  in  which  St.  Cyril  understood  him  to  be 
primus — viz.  in  jurisdiction.  According  to  Catholic  teaching,  the  Pope 
is  on  a  par  with  all  bishops  as  regards  power  of  order,  but  their 
superior  in  jurisdiction. 


10  THE   COUNCIL   OF  EPHESUS 

into  Egypt,  and  in  consequence  had  written  an  encyclical 
to  the  Egyptian  monasteries  to  confirm  them  in  the 
faith.  Copies  of  this  finding  their  way  to  Constanti- 
nople, Nestorius  had  resented  his  action.  He  accused 
Cyril  of  having  read  the  Fathers  wrongly.  Cyril  says 
he  wrote  direct  to  Nestorius,  with  a  compendious  exposi- 
tion of  the  faith,  exhorting  him  to  conform  to  this.  All 
the  bishops,  adds  Cyril,  are  with  me,  especially  those 
of  Macedonia.  Nestorius,  however,  considered  that  he 
alone  understood  the  Scriptures.  While  all  orthodox 
bishops  and  saints  confess  Christ  to  be  God,  and  the 
Virgin  to  be  the  mother  of  God  (Ssotokos,)  he  alone  who 
denies  this  is  supposed,  forsooth,  to  be  in  the  right. 
The  people  of  Constantinople  now  began,  says  St.  Cyril, 
to  look  for  aid  outside  their  province.  St.  Cyril  felt 
that  a  *  dispensation  was  entrusted  to  him,'  and  that  he 
should  have  to  answer  on  the  day  of  judgment  for  silence 
in  this  matter.  He  does  not,  however,  feel  that  he 
can  confidently  withdraw  himself  from  communion  with 
Nestorius  before  communicating  these  things  to  His 
Holiness. 

'  Deign,  therefore,  to  decree  what  seems  right  (Tvwaxrat 
TO  hoKovv),  whether  we  ought  to  communicate  at  all  with 
him,  or  to  tell  him  plainly  that  no  one  communicates 
with  a  person  who  holds  and  teaches  what  he  does. 
Further,  the  purpose  of  your  Holiness  ought  to  be  made 
known  by  letter  to  the  most  religious  and  God-loving 
bishops  of  Macedonia,  and  to  all  the  bishops  of  the 
East,  for  we  shall  then  give  them,  according  to  their 
desire,  the  opportunity  of  standing  together  in  unity  of 
soul  and  mind,  and  lead  them  to  contend  earnestly 
(sTraycoviaaa-dai)  for  the  orthodox  Faith  which  is  being 
attacked.     As  regards  Nestorius,  our  fathers  who  have 


ROME  DEFINES  11 

said  that  the  Holy  Virgin  is  the  mother  of  God  are, 
together  with  us  who  are  here  to-day,  included  in  his 
anathema  ;  for  although  he  did  not  like  to  do  this  with 
his  own  lips,  still,  by  sitting  and  listening  to  another 
(viz.  Dorotheus),  he  has  helped  him  to  do  it,  for  im- 
mediately on  coming  from  the  throne  he  communi- 
cated him  at  the  holy  mysteries.'  He  (St.  Cyril)  has 
therefore  sent  his  Holiness  the  materials  for  forming  a 
judgment.^ 

St.  Celestine  in  a  beautiful  letter,  in  answer,  expresses 
his  joy  at  Cyril's  purity  of  faith.  He  endorses  his 
teaching,  and  embraces  him  in  the  Lord,  as  present  in 
his  letters.  For  (says  the  Pope)  we  are  of  one  mind 
concerning  Christ  our  Lord  !  He  compares  Cyril  to  a 
good  shepherd,  and  Nestorius  not  even  to  a  hireling,  but 
to  a  wolf,  who  is  destroying  his  own  sheep.  Our  Lord 
Jesus  Christ,  whose  own  '  generation  '  is  questioned, 
shows  us  that  we  should  toil  for  one  sheep  ;  how  much 
more  for  one  shepherd  !     We  ought,  therefore,  *  to  shut 

'  Dr.  Bright  {R.  See,  p.  145)  objects  to  the  interpretation  here  given 
of  the  words  rvTrwcrai  rh  Sokovu,  (1)  because  the  Latin  (which  he  sets 
aside  in  Celestine's  letter,  but  prefers  in  Cyril's !)  has  quid  hie  sentias 
prcBscribere— -words  which  he  avoids  translating,  but  which  are,  to  say 
the  least,  compatible  with  the  idea  of  authoritative  decision  ;  and  (2)  be- 
cause '  Cyril  tells  Celestine  that  he  ought  to  make  known  his  mind 
{(TKdirov)  to  the  Macedonian  bishops.'  Dr.  Bright  adds :  •  We  shall 
presently  see  that  the  Oriental  bishops  did  not  regard,  &c.' 

As  to  (1),  the  Greek  word  rvrrua-ai  will  be  commented  on  directly  (p.  21). 
Meanwhile  as  to  (2),  it  may  be  remarked  (o)  that  the  question  is,  not  as 
to  what  the  Oriental  bishops  thought,  but  what  Cyril  here  meant.  And 
(/8)  the  word  o-zcdiros,  so  far  from  being  suggestive  of  unauthoritative 
direction,  is  actually  used  a  few  pages  further  on  of  the  Emperor's 
commands,  which  Count  Candidian  complained  had  not  been  obeyed 
(Mansi,  iv.  1233),  and  it  occurs  several  times  in  reference  to  the 
Emperor  later  on  (cf.  1261, 1264).  It  will  be  seen  presently  that  Cyril 
did  consider  that  Celestine  had  decided  the  question. 


12  THE   COUNCIL   OF  EPHESUS 

him  out  from  the  sheep,  unless  there  is  hope  of  his  con- 
version. This  we  earnestly  desire.  But  if  he  persists^ 
an  open  sentence  must  be  passed  on  him,  for  a  wound, 
when  it  affects  the  whole  body,  must  be  at  once  cut 
away.  For  what  has  he  to  do  with  those  who  are  of  one 
mind  among  themselves — he  who  considers  that  he 
alone  knows  what  is  best,  and  dissents  from  our  faith  ? 
Let,  then,  all  those  whom  he  has  removed  remain  in 
communion  [with  the  Church],  and  give  him  to  under- 
stand that  he  cannot  be  in  communion  with  us  if  he 
persists  in  this  path  of  perversity  in  opposition  to  the 
Apostolic  teaching.  Wherefore  assuming  to  you  the 
authority  of  our  See,  and  acting  in  our  stead  andplace 
with  delegated  authority  {s^ovala),  you  shall  execute  a 
sentence  of  this  kind  (sK^t/Sdo-sis  air 6 cf^aatv),  not  without 
strict  severity,  viz.  that  unless  within  ten  days  after 
this  admonition  of  ours  he  anathematises,  in  written 
confession,  his  evil  teaching,  and  promises  for  the  future 
to  confess  the  faith  concerning  the  birth  of  Christ  our 
God  which  both  the  Church  of  Eome  and  that  of  your 
Holiness,  and  the  whole  Christian  religion  preaches, 
forthwith  your  Holiness  will  provide  for  that  Church. 
And  let  him  know  that  he  is  to  be  altogether  removed 
from  our  body.  .  .  .  We  have  written  the  same  to  our 
brothers  and  fellow-bishops  John,  Rufus,  Juvenal,  and 
Flavian,  whereby  our  judgment  concerning  him,  yea 
rather,  the  judgment  of  Christ  our  Lord,  may  be  mani- 
fest.' 

These  two  letters  contain  the  following  important 
points. 

(i)  It  was,  according  to  St.  Cyril,  an  '  ancient 
custom  of  the  Churches,'  not  simply  of  Alexandria,  for 
troubles  concerning  the  faith  (Mansi,  iv.  1011),  and  such 


ROME   DEFINES  13 

important  matters  as  the  deposition  of  an  heretical 
archbishop,  to  be  referred  to  Rome. 

(ii)  St.  Cyril  asks  St.  Celestine  to  prescribe  what  he 
judges  best  in  the  matter  ;  to  give  the  decision  on  this 
important  case,  and  to  notify  his  decision  to  all  the 
bishops  of  the  East.  Dr.  Bright  merely  calls  this  writing 
in  '  very  deferential  terms '  ^  to  the  Bishop  of  Rome. 
Would  it  not  surprise  some  of  his  readers  to  know  how 
deferential  the  terms  of  St.  Cyril's  letter  were  ?  He 
uses  a  word  which  occurs  again  and  again  in  the  Acts  of 
the  Councils  in  reference  to  the  relation  of  the  Pope  to 
the  condemnation  of  Nestorius,  asking  him  Tvirooaat  to 
hoKovv — words  which  are  a  sort  of  refrain  for  a  year  to 
come  ;  they  form  the  keynote  to  the  proceedings  at 
Ephesus.     Bossuet  remarks  upon  this  expression,  that 

*  it  signifies,  in  Greek,  to  declare  juridically ;  rviros  is  a 
rule,  a  sentence,  and  rvTraxrab  rb  Sokovv  is  to  declare 
one's  opinion  judicially.  The  Pope  alone  could  do  it. 
Neither  Cyril,  nor  any  other  patriarch,  had  the  power  to 
depose  Nestorius,  who  was  not  their  subject :  the  Pope 
alone  did  it,  and  no  one  was  found  to  exclaim  against  it, 
because  his  authority  extended  over  all.'  ^ 

(iii)  St.  Celestine,  on  being  appealed  to  by  St.  Cyril 
to  formulate  the  decision  as  to  Nestorius's  excommuni- 
cation and  deposition,  at  once  assumes  his  infallibility 
in  such  a  grave  matter.  The  Vatican  decree  does  not  go 
beyond  his  words,  when  he  says  of  his  own  sentence  on 
Nestorius^  that  it  is  not  so  much  his,  but  rather  it  is 

*  the  divine  judgment  of  Christ  our  Lord  ;  '  and  again  to 
the  Patriarch  of  Antioch  he  says,  '  and  let  your  Holiness 

'  Dictionary  of  Christian  Biography,  art.  '  Cyril,'  p.  766. 
^  Remarques  sur  Vhistoire  des  Conciles,  &c.     {(Euvres,  t.  30,  p.  526. 
Versailles,  1817.) 


14         THE  COUNCIL  OF  EPHESUS 

know  this  sentence  is  passed  by  us,  yea,  rather  by  Christ 
[our]  God.'  Just  as  afterwards  the  Synod,  writing  to  the 
clergy  of  Constantinople,  calls  the  executed  sentence, 
being  that  of  Pope  and  Council  together,  *  the  just 
sentence  of  the  Holy  Trinity  and  their  [i.e.  the  bishops* 
and  legates']  divinely  inspired  judgment.' 

(iv)  And  again,  Celestine  is  here  pronouncing  judg- 
ment as  to  what  is  preached  by  the  whole  Christian 
religion,'  and  decides  to  cut  off  Nestorius  from  the 
common  unity. 

Dr.  Wordsworth  speaks  of  this  all-important  letter 
as  being  simply  a  statement  of  *  the  orthodox  doctrine  of 
the  Western  Fathers  '  upon  the  controversy  !  ^  Celestine, 
however,  states  that  he  is  giving  the  doctrine  of  the 
Church  of  Rome  and  Alexandria  and  *  the  whole  Christian 
religion,'  or,  as  he  expresses  it  in  his  letter  to  Nestorius 
(going  over  the  same  ground),  'the  universal  Church.' 
Dr.  Bright  has  described  it  thus : 

*  Celestine  gave  Cyril  a  commission  of  stringent 
character  (Mansi,  iv.  1017).  He  was  "to  join  the 
authority  of  the  Roman  See  to  his  own,'  and  on  the  part 
of  Celestine,  as  well  as  for  himself,  to  warn  Nestorius 
that  unless  a  written  retractation  were  executed  within 
ten  days,  giving  assurance  of  his  acceptance  of  the  faith 
as  to  "  Christ  our  God,"  which  was  held  by  the  Churches 
of  Bome  and  Alexandria,  he  would  be  excluded  from 
the  communion  of  those  Churches,  and  provision  would 
be  made  by  them  for  the  Church  of  Constantinople,  i.e, 
by  the  appointment  of  an  orthodox  bishop.'  ^ 

Now,  St.  Celestine  does  not  say  'join  the  authority 

'  Church  History,  iv.  210. 

-  Dictionary  of  Christian  Biography,  art.   '  Cyril.'  p.  766.      The 
italics  are  mine. 


ROME  DEFINES  15 

of  the  Roman  See  to  Ms  ownj  which  Canon  Bright  gives 
as  a  quotation.  There  is  nothing  in  the  Latin  or  Greek 
exactly  corresponding  to  *  his  own  : '  words  which  would 
suggest  something  more  than  the  Papal  decision  as  the 
source  of  authority.^  Neither  does  Celestine  bid  St. 
Cyril  warn  Nestorius  *  on  the  part  of  Celestine  as  well  as 
for  himself'  He  simply  constitutes  St.  Cyril  his  *  pleni- 
potentiary,' as  Dr.  Dollinger  accurately  expressed  it.^ 
Neither,  again,  does  Celestine  speak  of  the  faith  held  by 
the  Churches  of  Rome  and  Alexandria  simply,  but  he 
adds  that  it  is  that  of  the  entire  Christian  world  or 
religion.  And  further,  he  tells  Nestorius  in  the  same 
batch  of  letters  which  Cyril  was  to  read  and  forward, 
that  he  will  exclude  him,  not  from  the  communion  of 
*  those  Churches  '  only,  but  from  the  communion  also  of 
the   entire  Christian   Church.     The   latter   point  is  of 

*  In  his  Boman  See,  p.  146,  Dr.  Bright  urges  that  to  '  assume  the 
authority '  would  apply  to  one  '  who  had  no  ofi&cial  authority,'  and  that 
therefore  it  could  not  be  said  of  St.  Cyril.  He  therefore  objects  to  the 
translation  •  assuming  the  authority  of  our  See  '  and  translates  '  the 
authority  of  our  See  having  been  combined  with  yours.'  But  (1)  this  is 
a  mistranslation  of  the  Greek,  which  has  a-oi — i.e.  '  you,'  not '  yours  ' ; 
and  (2)  the  Latin,  which,  according  to  Canon  Bright's  own  principle 
{Roman  See,  p.  165),  is  of  prime  importance  in  a  Papal  letter,  runs  thus  : 
nostrcB  sedis  auctoritate  adscitd  (Mansi,  iv.  1019) ;  (3)  Cyril  had  no 
official  authority  over  Nestorius  :  he  could  not,  as  Bossuet  remarks,  ex- 
communicate him  from  communion  with  the  whole  Church,  as  Celestine 
at  any  rate  professed  to  do.  Besides,  the  words  '  acting  with  k^ova-la ' 
are  decisive  that  the  authority  was  considered  to  be  delegated,  even  if 
they  had  not  been  accompanied  by  the  words  '  using  our  place,'  which 
Dr.  Bright  admits  to  mean  delegation.  And,  lastly,  the  Greek  word 
crvmcpdeia-Tis  cannot  be  considered  to  exclude  the  combination  of  two  un- 
equal authorities,  for  it  was  in  constant  use  at  that  time  to  express  the 
combination  of  the  Logos  with  the  sacred  Humanity  in  our  Lord  :  cf. 
Harnack,  Hist,  of  Dogma  (Tr.),  iv.  171,  note,  and  supra,  p.  8. 

=  'Bevollmachtiger,'  Lehrbitch  (1843),  p.  121;  '  matidataire,' 
Duchesne,  Eglises  siparies,  p,  35. 


16         THE  COUNCIL  OF  EPHESUS 

importance,  but  it  is  strangely  misrepresented  in  the 
Dictionary  of  Christian  Biography  (Art.  Cyril,  by  W. 
Bright).^  In  this  very  letter  Celestine  speaks  of  Nestorius 
being  separated  from  *  our  body,'  by  which,  from  the 
contextual  use  of  *  our,'  he  could  not  mean  simply  his 
own,  nor  only  his  own  and  Cyril's,  but  the  whole  body 
of  the  Church.  Anyhow,  in  his  letter  to  Nestorius, 
which  St.  Cyril  was  to  read  and  forward,  and  which 
covers  the  same  ground,  and  was  read  at  the  Council  of 
Ephesus,  the  Pope  says  expressly  that  by  this  sentence, 
unless  he  retracts,  he  is  cut  off  from  the  communion  of 

*  the  whole  Catholic  Church  '  ('  ab  universalis  te  Ecclesiae 
Catholicse  communione  dejectum').^  This  is  a  vital 
point,  and  it  is  surely  not  fair  to  tell  the  reader  that 
Celestine  bade  Cyril  warn  Nestorius  that  he  was  to  be 
cut  off  from  the  communion  of  '  those  Churches  '  (viz. 
Eome  and  Alexandria)  when,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  he  was 
telling  him  that  he  was  to  be  cut  off  from  the  commu- 
nion of  the  whole  Catholic  Church.  They  are  words, 
too,  which  recur,  for  in  writing  to  the  clergy  and 
people  of  Constantinople  as  Celestine  did,  he  repeats 
the  sentence  in  full  which  Cyril  is  to  pass  on  Nestorius. 
And  while  he  speaks  again  of  the  faith  held,  not  only 
by  the  Churches  of  Eome  and  Alexandria,  but  by  *  the 
whole  Catholic  Church,'  he  says  that  Nestorius  is  to  be 

*  excommunicated  from  the  entire  Catholic  Church.' 
The  same  occurs  once  more  in  the  Pope's  letter  to  John 
of  Antioch.  The  Pope  there  again  speaks  as  clothed 
with  supreme  authority,  calling  his  sentence  *  the  sen- 
tence  passed   by   Christ   our   God,'   and   it   cuts   Nes- 

*  The  same  misleading  expression  (Eome  and  Alexandria)  occurs  in 
a  later  work  by  the  same  writer,  Waymarks,  &c.  p.  221.  The  omission 
is  supplied  in  The  Roman  See,  p.  147. 

-  Man  si,  iv.  1035. 


ROME   DEFINES  17 

torius   off   from   '  the   roll   of  bishops '    (*  episcoporum 
ccetu').! 

St.  Celestine  thus  comes  before  us  at  the  Council  of 
Ephesus  as  the  foundation  of  the  Church  in  a  crisis  of 
her  life  when  the  reality  of  our  Eedemption  was  at  stake ; 
for  this,  as  we  have  said,  was  the  real  point  at  issue,  as 
was  distinctly  stated  by  himself  and  St.  Cyril.  He 
stands  out  at  once  as  the  '  coniirmer  of  the  brethren,' 
(Luke  xxii.  32).  He  feeds,  or  governs,  the  sheep  of 
Christ,  supplying  them  with  authoritative  direction, 
with  the  TVTTos,  or  decree,  which  was  to  govern  their 
action.  He  exercises  his  Apostolate  over  the  whole 
Christian  Church,  directing  the  Christian  flock  in  Con- 
stantinople itself,^  as  well  as  the  Bishops  of  Antioch  and 
Jerusalem,  while  he  delegates  the  Bishop  of  Alexandria, 
the  second  throne  in  Christendom,  to  execute  his 
sentence. 

This  sentence,  therefore,  having  been  entrusted  to 
Cyril,  together  with  the  general  management  of  '  the 
affair  concerning  Nestorius,'  including  the  arrange- 
ments for  providing  a  new  bishop  for  Constantinople, 
Cyril  wrote  at  once  to  John,  Bishop  of  Antioch,  and 
after  telling  him  what  had  happened,  said  that  it  was 
for  him  to  consider  what  it  was  best  for  him  to  do. 
St.  Cyril  was  doubtless  well  aware  that  he  was  treading 
on  delicate  ground,  for  Nestorius  had  been  recommended 
for  the  see  of  Constantinople  by  John  himself ;  and  the 
event  proved  how  little  John  was  to  be  depended  upon. 
Jn  describing  what  had  taken  place,  Cyril  says :  '  The 
holy  Synod  of  the  Eomans  has  issued  a  plain  decree 
{(jiavspa  rsrvncoKs),  and  moreover  has  sent  it  in  writing 
to  your  Keverence,  which  [decree]  it  is  necessary  for 
'  Mansi,  iv.  1050.  2  j^^^  1036. 

C 


18         THE  COUNCIL  OF  EPHESUS 

those  to  obey  who  cling  to  communion  with  the  whole 
West.'  After  saying  that  the  Synod  had  written  to 
others — the  Synodical  letters  are  headed  *  Celestine  to 
our  beloved  brother ' — Cyril  proceeds  :  *  We  shall  follow 
the  decisions  given  by  him,  fearing  to  lose  the  com- 
munion of  so  many,  who  are  not  angry  with  us  on  any 
other  account,  and  the  judgment  and  impulse  given  ^  is 
not  about  matters  of  little  moment,  but  on  behalf  of  the 
faith  itself,  and  of  the  Churches  which  are  everywhere 
disturbed,  and  of  the  edification  of  the  people.'  ^ 

The  position  adopted  by  Cyril  in  endeavouring  to 
secure  that  John  of  Antioch  should  do  his  duty  was, 
therefore,  as  follows  :  This  is  a  matter  in  which  we 
ought  to  accept  the  decision  of  the  Eoman  Synod.  The 
West  will  themselves  obey ;  they  will  also  make  it  a 
condition  of  communion  with  others  that  they,  too, 
should  obey  the  Eoman  Synod  in  this  matter.  Thus, 
if  we  disobey,  we  shall  differ  from  the  whole  West  as  to 
the  necessity  of  obedience,  and  that,  too,  in  a  matter 
which  concerns  the  faith.  '  We  shall  [therefore]  follow 
the  decisions  given  by  him,'  i.e.  by  Celestine.  If  we 
were  to  put  this  into  the  technical  terms  of  Catholic 
theology,  it  would  be  the  same  as  saying  that  the 
decision  of  Celestine  was  an  ex-cathedra  judgment ; 
that  it  would  be  so  regarded  by  the  West,  and  that  the 
course  to  be  pursued  in  the  East  was  therefore  clear — 

'  Gk.  Kiv7j(Tis,  which  implies  that  Celestine  set  the  matter  in  motion, 
gave  its  direction  and  impulse — a  direction  which  the  Synod  twice  say 
could  not  be  resisted  :  first  in  the  sentence  passed  at  their  first  Session, 
and  secondly  in  their  account  of  their  doings  to  the  Papal  legates.  In 
this  latter  case  they  use  the  expression  avayKaiws  KivriQivTis  (Mansi,  iv. 
1296).  The  same  word  {Kivi]cravros)  is  used  of  the  Emperor's  summons 
of  the  Bishops  to  the  Synod,  iv.  1276. 

2  Mansi,  iv.  1052. 


ROME   DEFINES  19 

they  must  obey.  That  Celestine  intended  his  judgment 
as  what  we  should  now  call  an  ex-cathedra  dogmatic 
decision  is  certain,  for  he  insisted  on  Nestorius  using 
the  term  ^sotokos  (Mother  of  God)  in  the  sense  which 
he,  in  his  court  of  judgment  at  Rome,'  decided  to  be  the 
sense  of  the  word  in  the  mind  of  the  whole  Church. 
From  that  hour  this  word  %sot6kos  (Mother  of  God) 
was  destined  necessarily  to  take  its  place  in  the 
terminology  of  the  Church  just  as  much  as  the  term 
ofjLoovaLos  (Consubstantial)  in  the  preceding  century. 
It  was  not  inserted  in  the  Creed,  because  the  very 
judgment  of  the  Pope  was  that  it  was  contained  in  the 
actual  terms  of  that  Creed.  It  safeguarded,  as  it  was 
a  development  of,  that  Creed.^ 

1  Mansi,  iv.  548-552. 

-  Dr.  Bright  translates  the  quotation  given  above  from  Cyril's  letter 
as  though  he  said  that  it  was  necessary  to  •  follow '  the  '  Romans,' 
changing  the  order  of  the  words  in  his  translation.  But  the  Greek  is  not 
cLKoXovBdv  (follow),  but  7re£0eo-0ot  (obey),  and  the  relative  pronoun  more 
naturally  refers  to  the  decisions  {(papepa  TeTvirwKe)  than  to  the  Eomans. 
It  would  mean  the  Romans  in  Synod  even  if  Dr.  Bright  were  correct  in 
his  rendering  of  the  relative  oh.  He  also  suggests  that  lower  down  we 
should  read  irop'  ainau  (by  them)  instead  of  trap'  abrov  (by  him),  i.e. 
Celestine.  This  is  arbitrary  ;  and,  moreover,  it  would  not  help  his  case, 
as  he  appears  to  think  it  would.  For  why  should  the  West  (as  Cyril's 
argument  requires)  obey  the  decisions  of  a  Roman  Synod  as  a  matter  of 
course,  unless  it  was  the  court  of  a  superior  judge?  It  must  be 
remembered  that  that  Synod  was  not  composed  of  bishops  delegated  by 
the  West.  It  consisted  merely  of  the  bishops,  as  St.  Cyril  says,  '  found 
in  Rome  '  at  the  moment ;  and  that  decision  is  again  and  again  called  the 
decision  of  Celestine,  by  Celestine  himself,  by  Cyril,  by  John  of  Antioch, 
and  by  the  Synod  of  Ephesus.  Cyril  on  this  particular  occasion  naturally 
spoke  of  it  as  the  decision  of  the  Roman  Synod  :  i.e.  he  spoke  of  the 
Court,  the  instrument,  rather  than  of  the  judge,  to  emphasise  the  fact 
that  it  was  a  solemn  dogmatic  settlement  of  the  matter,  to  which  all 
must  adhere  who  were  to  continue  in  communion  with  the  West.  He 
calls  it  in  point  of  fact,  in  this  very  passage,  both  the  judgment  of  the 

c  2 


20  THE   COUNCIL  OF  EPHESUS 

John  of  Antioch  wrote  to  Nestorius  on  receiving  the 
Papal  decision,  and  urged  him  to  submit  on  the  ground 
that,  although  the  time  given  by  Celestine  (he  thus 
treats  it  as  the  judgment  of  Celestine)  was  indeed  short, 
still  it  was  a  matter  in  which  obedience  need  not  be  a 
matter  of  days  even,  but  of  a  single  hour  ;  and  that 
the  term  '  Mother  of  God,'  although  capable  of  abuse, 
was  one  which  the  Fathers  had  used,^  and  to  which, 
therefore,  Nestorius  could  easily  give  his  consent, 
attaching  to  it  his  own  doubtless  orthodox  meaning. 
He  urges  him,  in  conclusion,  to  give  up  his  own 
opinion  in  favour  of  the  general  good. 

Cyril  wrote  also  to  Juvenal  of  Jerusalem  saying  that 
Nestorius  had  been  '  condemned  '  by  Celestine  as  *  a 
heretic '  and  that  Celestine  had  *  written  clear  things ' 
(the  expression  used  by  him  of  the  Synod  in  his  letter 
to  John),  which  he  has  now  sent  on  to  Juvenal  to  excite 
his  zeal  to  '  save  our  imperilled  flocks '  ;  and  he  exhorts 
him  to  assist  in  writing  both  to  Nestorius  and  to  the 
people  in  accordance  with  the  decree  {opvaOivra  rvirov), 
i.e.  the  Papal  decision,  and  suggests  that  pressure 
should  be  brought  to  bear  upon  the  Emperors.^ 

Meanwhile  Cyril  had  summoned  a  synod  at  Alexan- 
dria and  in  conjunction  with  the  bishops  he  drew  up 
twelve  Anathematisms,  which  he  forwarded  three  months 
later  to  Nestorius  together  with  the  Papal  sentence. 

Bossuet  describes  the  situation  thus  (the  italics 
are  his)  :  '  C'est  Celestin  qui  prononce,  c'est  Cyrille  qui 
execute,  et  il  execute  avec  puissance^  parce  qu'il  agit  par 

Synod  and  the  judgment  of  Celestine,  if  we  accept  the  only  reading 
supplied  us  in  the  Greek  (ttop'  avTov  Kpiixa(n,  iv.  1052). 

'  Mansi,  iv.  1068.     See  Harnack,  History  of  Dogma  (Tr.),  iv.  168. 

■•'  Mansi,  iv.  1060. 


ROME   DEFINES  21 

autorite  du  siege  de  Kome.  Ce  qu'il  ecrit  a  Nestorius 
n'est  pas  moins  fort,  puisqu'il  donne  son  approbation  a 
la  foi  de  saint  Cyrille,  et,  en  consequence,  il  ordonne  a 
Nestorius  de  se  former  a  **  ce  qu'il  lui  verra  enseigner  " 
sous  peine  de  deposition.'  ^ 


Note  on  the  Meaning  of  tvtto?. 

Dr.  Bright  insists  upon  translating  tvttos  by  *  direction  * 
{Boman  See,  p.  163,  and  pp.  145,  148)  by  way  of  correcting 
the  translation  given  by  Bossuet,  which  I  have  adopted  in 
the  text,  viz.  *  judicial  decree '  or  sentence,  conveying  the 
idea  of  authority.  And  on  p.  163  he  omits  in  the  text  the 
word  ijnjcfiov  in  translating  the  speech  of  Bishop  Firmus,  who 
is  giving  the  Council's  view  of  what  Celestine  had  done.  This 
omission,  which  originally  occurred  in  his  article  in  the 
Church  Quarterly  Bevieiu  for  Jan.  1895,  p.  289,  was 
pointed  out  by  me  in  the  Dtiblin  Beview,  April  1895 — an 
article  which  Dr.  Bright  read,  as  he  refers  to  it.  Yet 
Dr.  Bright  repeats  the  misquotation  in  the  text  of  his 
Boman  See  dc,  p.  163,  only  adding  in  small  print  in  a 
note  that  'the  word  iprjcfiov,  "sentence,"  precedes.'  The 
reader  would  hardly  gather  from  this  how  or  what  exactly  it 
*  precedes.'  And  yet  a  great  deal  hangs  on  this.  For  the 
contention  maintained  is  that  Celestine  delivered  an  authori- 
tative regulation,  a  decree,  a  sentence,  whereas  Dr.  Bright 
persists  in  translating  it  merely  as  '  direction,'  which  is  a 
more  colourless,  less  'judicial'  word,  and  is  compatible 
with  the  idea  of  no  particular  authority — something,  in  fact, 

'  Bemarques  sur  Vhistoire  des  Conciles,  p.  524,  t.  30,  Versailles, 
1817.  For  proof  of  Bossuet's  statement  as  to  the  Papal  '  approbation  ' 
of  Cyril's  teaching  cf.  Mansi,  iv.  1033,  where  Celestine  says  of  it : 
ia-xfiKafiev  Koi  exofiev  hi^oKijxaaixivriv  =  '■  we  held  and  hold  it  as  approved,' 
i.e.  as  sound  in  doctrine.  This  was  read  out  in  the  Council  of 
Ephesus.  ^ 


22         THE  COUNCIL  OF  EPHESUS 

that  might  or  might  not  be  followed  according  as  convenience 
should  dictate.  Firmus's  words  are  that  Celestine  i}n}<f>ov 
€.Tr€-^(.  Kot  TVTTov,  '  gavc  a  scntencc  and  decree.'  This  fixes  the 
meaning  of  rvVos.  It  is  simply  a  '  decree,'  and  as  will  be 
seen  hereafter  is  equivalent  to  an  opo?,  in  spite  of  what 
Dr.  Bright  has  said  on  p.  167.  (Cf .  infra,  p.  107.)  The  words 
TVTTos  and  tvttovv  constantly  occur  in  the  'Acts'  of  the 
Councils  for  an  authoritative  decision  or  decree.  As  mere 
examples  of  literally  multitudinous  instances  :  Cyril  uses  the 
substantive  of  the  Imperial  decree  fixing  the  date  of  the 
Council  (Mansi,  iv.  1229)  ;  Anatolius  uses  it  of  the  sentence 
passed  on  Dioscorus  by  the  Council  of  Chalcedon  {Leonis 
E;p.  101,  §  2) ;  the  Emperor  Marcian  uses  the  verb  of  the 
things  finally  decided  by  the  Synod  of  Chalcedon  {Leon. 
Ep.  105) ;  the  substantive  is  used  of '  the  decision  of  all  the 
Churches '  (Mansi,  iv.  1297) ;  it  is  used  again  and  again  of 
decrees  of  the  Nicene  Council :  once  even  of  the  Third  Person 
in  the  Holy  Trinity  having  made  those  decrees,  crvVwcre  ra 
T€TV7ro>fji€va  (ibid.  vii.  627)  ;  it  is  frequently  used  of  the 
Imperial  decrees,  Oecovs  tvttod?  (ibid.  vi.  1032).  In  one 
instance  where,  according  to  Dr.  Bright,  it  does  not  mean 
authoritative  regulation,  he  is  mistaken  in  supposing  that 
the  idea  of  '  model '  is  conveyed  by  it  {Canons  of  the  First 
Four  General  Councils,  2nd  ed.  p.  200).  The  reference  is  to 
the  public  '  typi '  or  *  tabulae  '  of  the  Eoman  Empire,  settling 
the  division  of  provinces,  territories,  camps,  and  called 
'  Notitia.'  The  ecclesiastical  divisions  were  to  follow  these, 
according  to  the  17th  Canon  of  Chalcedon,  not  because 
these  were  '  models  *  for  the  ecclesiastical  scheme  of  distri- 
bution, but  because  they  were  the  Imperial  regulations  or 
ordinances  or  decrees  on  the  civil  distribution  of  provinces, 
&c.  That  is  to  say,  they  were  tvttol  without  reference  to 
ecclesiastical  conformity,  but  because  they  were  authoritative 
regulations  for  the  Imperial  civil  administration.  In  short, 
rviro<;  is  properly  in  Byzantine  (and  especially  Conciliar) 
Greek    an  authoritative  regulation,  a  decree  or  ordinance. 


KOME   DEFINES  23 

In  the  last  three  editions  of  Liddell  and  Scott's  Greek 
Lexicon  (6th,  7th,  and  8th),  the  meaning  of  tvttos  in  Byzan- 
tine Greek  has  been  added  as  simply  '  decree,  or  ordinance.' 
The  important  point  in  the  description  of  this  word  in 
reference  to  Celestine's  action  is  that  it  impHes,  not  any 
kind  of  direction,  but  authoritative  direction,  i.e.  a  decree  or 
sentence. 


CHAPTER  II 

NESTORIUS   WORKS   FOR   A   GENERAL   COUNCIL 

But  meanwhile  Nestorius  had  tried  to  turn  the  subject. 
First,  he  had  artfully  appealed  to  the  Pope  to  know  what 
ought  to  be  done  about  certain  supposed  disseminators 
of  Apollinarian  teaching,  with  which  in  Constanti- 
nople itself  he  ceaselessly  charged  Cyril ;  and,  next,  he 
devised  another  plan  for  staying  the  execution  of  any 
sentence  against  himself.  Before  a  sentence  could  be 
served  on  him  in  Constantinople — before,  that  is,  it 
could  acquire  any  canonical  force  such  as  the  Emperor 
could  recognise — he  induced  His  Imperial  Majesty  to 
summon  a  Council  to  allay  the  general  disturbance  of  the 
Church  in  the  East. 

To  understand  the  situation,  it  will  be  necessary  to 
glance  at  the  state  of  things  in  Constantinople.  As 
Cyril,  in  his  correspondence  with  Nestorius  previous  to 
delating  him  to  the  Pope,  had  charged  Nestorius  with 
broaching  novelties  {Kaivoro/jLia),  so  Nestorius  retorted 
that  Cyril  was  himself  the  doctrinal  innovator  in  the 
direction  of  Apollinarianism.  But  there  were  others  in 
the  Imperial  city  just  then  who  were  labouring  under  a 
sentence  passed  at  Rome  for  having  introduced  novel 
doctrine.  The  ecclesiastical  atmosphere  was  in  fact 
charged  with  disturbing  influences  in  the  persons  of 
Pelagian  adventurers  who  had  found  their  way  to  the 


ITS  ORIGIN  25 

capital  from  Antioch,  the  great  centre  of  strictly  Oriental 
ecclesiasticism. 

That  city — which  first  heard  the  name  of  Christian 
applied  to  the  followers  of  Jesus  Christ ;  honoured  by 
the  Church  as  one  of  the  three  sees  of  Peter ;  the  third 
throne  in  Christendom — had  long  proved  a  nursery  of 
heretical  teaching  and  religious  dissension.  Nestorius 
himself  came  from  Antioch.  While  there  he  had  come 
across  Theodore  of  Mopsuestia,  the  pupil  of  Diodorus, 
Bishop  of  Tarsus,  who  was  the  fountain,  so  far  as  we  can 
trace  things  upwards,  of  all  the  mischief  which  occa- 
sioned the  Council  of  Ephesus.  In  opposing  Apollin- 
arianism  Diodorus  had  lost  the  balance  of  faith,  and 
taught  that  the  union  of  Godhead  and  Manhood  in  the 
Redeemer  was  not  of  substance  with  substance,  but  of 
two  persons  :  a  union  of  name,  authority,  and  honour. 
Theodore  imbibed  his  error,  and  so  great  and  lasting  was 
the  magic  of  Theodore's  influence  that  his  name  had  to 
be  condemned  in  the  Sixth  Council.  Nestorius  had  come 
under  Theodore's  teaching.  John  of  Antioch,  in  urging 
Nestorius  to  obey  the  Papal  decision,  alluded  to  Theo- 
dore's withdrawal  of  certain  erroneous  expressions  as  an 
encouragement.  Being  both  of  Antioch,  they  under- 
stood the  force  of  such  an  appeal. 

But  there  was  another  of  Theodore's  pupils,  the 
Bishop  Julian,  a  fellow-countryman  of  Nestorius,  who 
entered  into  the  lists  with  St.  Augustine  in  favour  of 
Pelagianism,  and,  with  the  usual  modesty  of  heretics, 
compared  himself  to  David,  and  Augustine  to  Goliath. 
This  Julian  had  been  deposed  by  the  Holy  See  for  his 
Pelagian  teaching,  and  previous  to  the  emergence  of 
Nestorianism  had  found  his  way  to  Constantinople  with 
some  others  in  the  hope  of  moving  the  Emperor  to  call  a 


26         THE  COUNCIL  OF  EPHESUS 

Council  to  reverse  the  sentence  of  the  Pope.  Two  suc- 
cessive Bishops  of  Constantinople  had  refused  to  present 
him  at  Court.  But  it  seems,  from  a  letter  of  Celestine's, 
that  Nestorius  was  on  too  friendly  terms  with  Julian  to 
please  the  Pope,  and  that  but  for  his  fear  of  Celestine  he 
would  have  consented  to  present  Julian  to  the  Emperor. 
When  the  see  of  Constantinople  was  vacant,  Celestine 
had  been  anxious  about  its  future  occupant  for  this  very 
reason,  lest  he  should  be  one  that  would  use  his  privilege 
of  introduction  in  favour  of  such  ecclesiastical  *  lepers ' 
as  Julian,  and  lead  his  Imperial  Majesty  to  call  a  Council 
for  no  adequate  reason,  and  so  simply  disturb  the  peace 
of  the  Church.  St.  Augustine  and  the  African  Church 
had  expressed  themselves  satisfied  with  the  ruling  of  the 
Holy  See  in  regard  to  Pelagianism.  The  expression 
* Boma  locuta  est;  causa  finita  est,'  though  not  the 
actual  words  of  St.  Augustine,  are  the  exact  equivalent 
of  what  he  did  say.  '  The  rescripts  have  come,'  i.e.  from 
Eome  (which  are  St.  Augustine's  words),  is  the  same  as 
*  Rome  has  spoken  ' ;  and  the  '  case  is  finished  '  are  his 
actual  words.  He  was  satisfied  with  the  decision  of  local 
Councils  sanctioned  by  Borne.  But  the  Pelagians  wished 
to  appeal  to  a  General  Council.  St.  Augustine  had 
reproved  them  for  their  disobedience.  Capreolus,  Bishop 
of  Carthage,  writing  in  the  name  of  the  African  Church 
to  the  Synod  when  it  was  summoned,  goes  out  of  his  way 
to  press  this  point,  that  the  bishops  of  Africa  had 
accepted  the  decision  of  the  Holy  See,  and  that  the  Synod 
of  Ephesus  had  no  right  to  re-open  matters  already 
settled  by  such  authority.  He  speaks  of  novel  doctrines 
which  '  the  authority  of  the  Apostolic  See  and  the  judg- 
ment of  the  bishops  agreeing  together  has  defeated,'  and 
submits  that  to  treat  these  as  open  questions  would  be 


ITS  ORIGIN  27 

to  discover  a  lack  of  faith.*  As  a  matter  of  fact,  the 
Synod  of  Ephesus  did  allude  to  their  case,  not  to  re-open 
it,  but  to  signify  in  express  terms  their  adhesion  en  bloc 
to  the  decisions  of  the  Holy  See. 

Julian,  however,  hoped  much  from  a  Council,  and, 
seeing  his  opportunity  in  the  appointment  of  Nestorius 
to  the  see  of  Constantinople,  appears  to  have  drawn  him 
into  a  favourable  inclination  to  himself.  Nestorius  had 
gone  so  far  as  to  sound  Celestine  as  to  what  could  be 
done  in  regard  to  such  as  Julian.^  There  was,  indeed,  a 
natural  affinity  between  their  heresies.  *  Where  Pelagius 
ends,  Nestorius  begins,'  said  St.  Prosper ;  and  '  Nestorius 
erred  concerning  the  head,  Pelagius  concerning  the 
body,'  said  a  Council  of  Western  bishops. 

Nestorius,  then,  probably  assisted  by  Julian,  turned 
to  the  Emperor  and  tried  for  a  General  Council.  The 
Emperor,  not  unnaturally,  welcomed  the  idea  of  putting 
an  end  to  what  he  regarded  as  an  unprofitable  strife. 

The  long-seated  antipathy  between  Constantinople 
and  Alexandria  would  also  not  be  without  its  effect  on 
the  situation ;  but,  in  addition,  Cyril  had  quite  recently 
incurred  the  displeasure  of  the  Emperor  by  writing 
privately  to  the  Empresses  two  magnificent  letters  on  the 
subject  of  the  Incarnation.  Theodosius  was  just  then 
becoming  jealous  of  the  growing  influence  of  his  sister, 
the  Empress  Pulcheria,  which,  happily,  was  always  on 
the  orthodox  side,  while  the  Emperor  himself  had  come 
under  the  subtle  influence  of  Nestorius.  It  was  natural 
that  the  best  mode  of  counteracting  the  supremacy 
exercised  by  Cyril  over  the  Catholics  of  the  East,  and  of 
Constantinople  in  particular,  and  of  settling  any  further 
troubles  from  the  Pelagians,  should  seem  to  his  Imperial 

»  Mansi,  iv.  1209.  ^  77,^,^  io21. 


28         THE  COUNCIL  OF  EPHESUS 

Majesty  to  lie  in  a  General  Council.  Anyhow  the  state 
of  confusion  was  such  as  to  make  him  feel  impatient,  and 
if  Nestorius  was  right,  he  would  have  full  opportunity 
for  displaying  those  powers  of  address  which  seem  to 
have  fascinated  Theodosius.  Nestorius  himself  hoped  to 
be  President  and  by  bringing  Cyril  under  an  accusation 
of  siding  with  Apollinarian  errors,  to  avert  any  sentence 
that  might  come  through  him  from  Eome.  The  execution 
of  the  impending  Papal  sentence  would  at  least  be  stayed 
owing  to  a  technical  difficulty ;  for  the  Alexandrian 
Archbishop,  if  himself  in  the  dock  under  trial,  could  not 
be  the  executor  of  a  Papal  condemnation  against  the 
Archbishop  of  Constantinople.  The  Council  was,  as 
Dr.  Pusey  expresses  it,  '  a  device  of  Nestorius.' 

But  the  idea  of  a  Council  was  also  welcomed  by  the 
orthodox  monks  whom  Nestorius  had  so  severely  perse- 
cuted, and  who  saw  their  only  method  of  escape  from  his 
fangs  in  the  publication  of  their  wrongs  at  a  Council. 
They  accordingly  wrote  to  the  Emperor  pleading  for  a 
Council.  Nothing  could  be  more  welcome  also  to  the 
Pope  himself,  his  desire  being  that  Nestorius  should 
have  some  opportunity  of  retractation,  such  as  a  Council 
would  afford.  He  expressed  himself  strongly  to  this 
effect  in  his  letter  to  Cyril,  after  the  Council  had  been 
summoned,  as  also  to  the  Synod  itself ;  and  his  own 
words — those  of  a  man  whose  sincerity  and  goodness 
were  never  questioned  by  his  contemporaries,  not  even 
by  Nestorius  himself  (who  only  thought  himself  more 
*  learned  '  than  the  Pope,  and,  indeed,  than  anyone  else) 
— are  better  evidence  than  the  imagination  of  certain 
controversialists  who  cannot  conceive  of  a  Pope  ever 
wishing  to  act  otherwise  than  with  a  high  hand. 

The  Emperor,  then,  sent  out  bis  summons ;  and  in 


ITS  ORIGIN  29 

his  letter  he  forbade  any  *  innovations  '  in  the  interim^^ 
i.e.  any  doctrinal  novelties  such  as  Nestorius  charged 
against  Cyril,  and  Cyril  against  Nestorius,  and  the 
Catholics  in  general  against  Julian  and  his  Pelagian  or 
semi-Pelagian  followers.  He  was,  however,  careful  not 
to  show  his  leanings  in  his  public  authoritative  letters, 
though  in  Cyril's  case  he  added  to  the  letter  of  summons 
a  private  one  complaining  of  his  stirring  up  strife  be- 
tween himself  and  the  Empresses  by  his  private  letters 
to  the  latter. 

But  matters  presently  took  an  unexpected  turn  in 
Constantinople.  The  summons  for  the  Council  was 
issued  by  the  Emperor  on  November  19.  By  the  end  of 
October  Cyril  had  held  his  Synod  at  Alexandria,  and  in 
the  beginning  of  November  (probably  November  3)  he 
wrote  his  letter  to  Nestorius  to  be  delivered  to  him  by 
four  bishops — one  more  than  the  usual  number  for 
serving  a  notice  on  an  archbishop,  owing  probably 
to  the  sentence  being  that  of  the  Bishop  of  Kome. 
Before  these  bishops  arrived  in  Constantinople  the 
Imperial  summons  had  been  issued  and  was  on  its  way 
to  distant  parts.  But  nevertheless,  on  November  30,  they 
served  the  notice  of  deposition  and  excommunication 
on  the  Archbishop  of  the  Imperial  city,  together  with 
the  Papal  letter  announcing  the  terms  on  which  he 
could  be  released,  and  together  also  with  the  twelve 
Anathematisms  added  by  Cyril  and  his  Alexandrian 
Synod.  Thus,  in  less  than  a  fortnight  after  the 
Imperial  summons,  the  whole  face  of  things  was  changed 
by  the  appearance  of  Cyril's  legates  in  Constantinople, 
bearing  with  them  the  Papal  sentence  of  deposition. 
Before  this  had  been  served,  the  idea  of  a  Council  had 

*  See  note  at  the  end  of  the  Chapter. 


30         THE  COUNCIL  OF  EPHESUS 

been  devised  to  settle  matters  between  Cyril  and 
Nestorius,  and  with  the  hope  on  Nestorius's  part  that  he 
would  preside.  Now  all  was  changed.  Nestorius  was 
condemned  by  the  highest  authority  known  to  the 
Church,  acting,  indeed,  before  the  idea  of  a  Council  had 
been  broached,  but  creating,  in  spite  of  that,  a  new 
situation. 

We  have  no  means  of  discovering  the  feelings  with 
which  this  action  on  the  part  of  Rome  and  Alexandria 
was  received  by  the  Emperor.  The  sentence  was 
delivered  to  Nestorius  on  Sunday  as  he  was  about  to 
solemnise  the  liturgy.  He  refused  to  receive  the  docu- 
ment at  first ;  but  the  bearers,  taking  hold  of  his  garment 
from  behind,  succeeded  in  lodging  the  notice  with  him. 
He  gave  no  answer,  but  each  side  prepared  for  the 
Council,  Nestorius  still  hoping,  it  would  seem,  to  be 
able  to  bring  on  a  theological  discussion,  through  the 
influence  of  the  Emperor,  whose  instructions  were 
entrusted  to  Count  Candidian,  and  who,  according  to 
Count  Irenaeus,  had  settled  that  Cyril  should  not  sit  as 
judge  at  all.' 

But  on  arriving  at  Ephesus  some  time  before 
Pentecost,  in  the  hope  doubtless  of  affecting  the  pre- 
liminary arrangements  for  the  Council,  Nestorius  was 
rudely  undeceived  by  the  attitude  which  Memnon,  the 
bishop  of  the  diocese,  at  once  assumed  towards  himself 
and  his  sympathisers.  The  doors  of  St.  Mary's  Church 
were  closed  against  them.  They  complained  to  the 
Emperor  that  they  could  not  celebrate  the  liturgy  of 
Pentecost  in  any  of  the  churches  throughout  the  city. 
Bishop  after  bishop,  too,  on  arriving  at  Ephesus,  must 
have  strengthened  Nestorius's  conviction  that  the  Papal 

'  ouSe  Kpiv€iu  COS  els  wv  rdv  Kpipofiivwv  ijSvyaro,  Mansi,  iv.  1393. 


ITS  ORIGIN  31 

sentence  was  practically  accepted,  and  that  the  bishops 
had  come,  as  Count  Candidian,  the  Imperial  Commis- 
sioner, afterwards  complained,  not  to  investigate  an  open 
question,  but  to  execute  a  sentence  already  passed^ 
Accordingly,  as  we  shall  see,  Nestorius  absented  him- 
self from  the  Synod. 

The  day  of  Pentecost  had  come  and  the  Bishop  of 
Antioch  had  not  arrived.  At  length  bishops  came  with 
a  message  from  him  that  the  Synod  was  not  to  wait.^ 
Some  bishops  in  Ephesus  had  already  fallen  ill,  many 
felt  the  results  of  heat  and  bad  accommodation,  and  at  last 
some  of  them  died.  As  they  said  the  Eequiem  Mass  of 
one  bishop  after  another,  the  survivors  must  have  felt 
keenly  the  cruelty  of  the  Patriarch  of  Antioch's  procras- 
tination. They  knew  it  to  be  of  set  purpose.  The 
Synod  in  its  report  to  the  Emperor  assured  His  Majesty 
of  their  conviction  that  John  had  delayed  from  a  desire 
not  to  be  present  at  Nestorius's  condemnation.  For  no 
orthodox  bishop  doubted  that  the  sentence  passed  by  the 
Pope  would  be  executed.  John,  they  said,  allowed 
friendship  [for  Nestorius]  to  gain  the  day  over  zeal  for 
the  truth.  Accordingly  the  bishops  agreed  to  enter  upon 
the  work  of  the  Council,  convinced  that  John  of  Antioch 
did  not  mean,  or  wish,  to  be  present,  for  (as  Cyril  after- 
wards told  the  clergy  and  people  of  Constantinople)  '  he 
knew  that  Nestorius  [his  friend]  would  be  condemned.'  ^ 
He  knew  that  that  was  not  really  an  open  question. 

'  Mansi,  iv.  1264.  As  Dean  Milman  says,  '  The  Bishop  of 
-  Constantinople  was  abready  a  condemned  heretic  ;  the  business  of  the 
Council  was  only  the  confirmation  of  their  [Celestine's  and  Cyril's] 
anathema.'  Hist,  of  Latin  Christianity,  i.  206.  And  Dr.  Pusey  says, 
'  The  mind  of  the  Church  had  been  expressed  in  the  previous  year.' 
Pref .  to  Minor  Works  of  Cyril,  Lib.  of  the  Fathers. 

2  Mansi,  iv.  1229,  1332.  ^  j^cl.  1232. 


32         THE  COUNCIL  OF  EPHESUS 


On  ThEODOSIUS's  PeOHIBITION   of   KaivoroiiCa. 

Dr.  Bright  says  that  Theodosius  '  had  ruled  that  "  no 
new  steps  should  in  the  interim  be  taken  by  any  indi- 
viduals "  '  {B.  See,  p.  153).  He  refers  his  readers  to  Mansi, 
iv.  1113,  and  adopts  Tillemont's  inference  that  Theodosius 
had,  in  effect,  '  arrested  the  decrees  of  Eome.'  Yes,  '  in 
effect ' ;  but  it  must  be  remembered  that  this  would  consti- 
tute no  formal  opposition  to  the  Papal  authority,  since  the 
decrees  were  not  yet  published.  Yet  this  appears  to  be  the 
point  of  Dr.  Bright's  remark.  But,  in  fact.  Dr.  Bright,  in 
his  translation  of  Katvoro/xta?  as  '  new  steps,'  has  given  a 
complexion  to  the  Emperor's  words,  which  is  not  warranted 
by  the  Greek.  The  Bishops  are  told  to  attend  />ir;8£yw,ia?  ttjoo 
Trj<5  dytcurctTTys  crvvohov  k(u  tov  fxiXXovTO^  Trap'  avryj?  KOtvrj  i/'^^w 
i<f>'  airacri  StSoa-dai  tvttov  KatvoTO/Jias  iSto,  Trapa  tlvCjv  ytvo/xei/iys  : 
i.e.  lit.  *  no  novelty  being  broached  by  any  in  their  individual 
capacity,  &c.'  It  was  not  a  question  of  '  new  steps  '  (as  Dr. 
Bright  translates),  but  of  what  Theodosius,  prompted  by 
Nestorius,  chose  to  call  '  novelties,'  i.e.  doctrinal  innovations, 
such  as  Cyril  was  considered  to  be  instilling  on  his  own 
account  into  the  minds  of  the  Empresses,  and  of  which  the 
Emperor  spoke  sharply  in  his  letter  to  Cyril  accompanying  the 
summons.  Katvoropta  has  a  definite  signification  in  the  Acts 
of  the  Councils.  It  is  the  word  which  Cyril  used  more  than 
once  of  Nestorius's  teaching  (Mansi,  iv.  1093,  1307).  Nes- 
torius's  doctrine  had  been  called  KaivorrjTa,  a  '  novelty,'  by 
Celestine  (iv.  1036).  The  bishops  at  the  Eoman  Synod  said 
that  Nestorius  atpecTLv  KaLvoTOfjrja-ai,  '  invented  a  heresy,' 
(iv.  1052).  Nestorius  retorted  the  accusation.  He  and  his 
sympathisers  used  the  word  in  regard  to  the  avoidance  of 
doctrinal  innovation,  or  fresh  Creeds,  by  all  Councils  since 
the  Nicene  (iv.  1233).  It  is  the  exact  opposite  of  'rightly 
handling  the  word  of  truth,'  opOoTOfxovvres,  2  Tim.  ii.  15 ; 
of.  Mansi,  iv.  1257.     It  was,  in  fact,  a  word  that  was  being 


ITS   ORIGIN  33 

bandied  about  on  either  side,  and  consequently  it  naturally 
came  into  the  Emperor's  letter  about  their  assembling  to 
confirm  the  ancient  faith.  Dr.  Bright,  mistaking  the  mean- 
ing of  the  word  in  Byzantine,  and  especially  ecclesiastical 
Greek,  strikes  a  wrong  note  as  to  the  situation.  The  raison 
d'etre  of  a  General  Council,  according  to  him,  was  to  bring 
on  to  the  stage  a  fuller  authority  than  that  of  Alexandria 
and  Borne.  So  he  renders  Ihia  irapa  tlvwv  'by  any  individuals.' 
But  in  reality  the  Emperor's  words  were  meant  to  *  arrest ' 
any  private  action  of  the  parties  to  the  quarrel  in  the 
East,  viz.  Cyril  and  Nestorius,  Eome  not  having  yet  come  on 
to  the  scene.  It  was  to  stop  each  of  them,  but  especially  Cyril, 
from  pushing  what  each  ascribed  to  the  other,  viz.  their 
doctrinal  innovations.  Even  if  Theodosius  had  known  of 
the  Papal  sentence,  he  could  not  have  referred  to  that ;  for 
its  subsequent  prom.ulgation  in  Constantinople  would,  in  that 
case,  have  been  a  high  misdemeanour,  whereas  it  was 
accepted  as  regular,  and  actually  spoken  of  as  such  by  the 
Synod  in  its  letter  to  the  Emperor  himself.  Dr.  Bright  has 
made  a  similar  mistake  in  the  translation  of  KaivoTOfjidv  in  a 
passage  in  the  account  of  the  Latrocinium  (cf.  infra,  p.  231). 


CHAPTEE    III 

THE    PRESIDENCY    AND    FUNCTIONS    OF    THE    COUNCIL 

The  Synod  began  its  sessions  on  the  sixteenth  day 
after  Pentecost.  The  orthodox  bishops  agreed  to  range 
themselves  under  Cyril.  Can  we  doubt  why  ?  They 
themselves  in  their  second  letter  to  the  Emperor  de- 
fine their  situation  thus.  They  tell  His  Majesty  that 
the  Eoman  Synod  had  condemned  the  teaching  of 
Nestorius  and  had  said  that  all  such  should  be  excluded 
from  the  Church,  and  that  '  even  before  this  holy  Synod 
was  convened,  Celestine  commissioned  Cyril  to  occupy 
his  place'— a  fact  which  they  seem  to  emphasise,  as 
suggesting  the  natural  function  of  Cyril  in  the  Council 
itself.  The  Emperor  was  against  Cyril  personally ;  he 
had  complained  of  his  interference  ;  he  had  not  intended 
him  to  be  President ;  he  ended  with  imprisoning  him. 
But  the  Synod  suggested  the  reason  why  this  action  was 
formally  valid,  viz.  that  he  had  been  commissioned  to  re- 
present Celestine '  even  before  the  Synod  ' — and  therefore, 
(so  they  seem  to  suggest),  since  the  commission  had  not 
been  revoked,  he  naturally  represented  him  at  the  Synod. 
Celestine  had  also,  they  add,  repeated  his  decision  in  a 
fresh  letter  ;  and  we  know  that  the  view  taken  by  the 
Synod,  in  its  third  session,  of  its  own  action  was  that  it 
had  passed  a  sentence  not  originally  its  own,  but  which 
it  had  accepted  and  made  its  own.     '  You  shall  execute 


ITS  FUNCTION  35 

this  sentence,'  was  the  Pope's  injunction  to  Cyril  ;  '  We 
executed  the  sentence,'  was  the  plea  of  the  Synod  to  the 
Papal  legates,  when  the  latter  said  that  they  had  come 
to  see  that  the  sentence  of  Celestine  was  fully  carried 
out.' 

St.  Cyril,  then,  assumed  the  Presidency,  as  having 
been  already  commissioned  by  Celestine  to  manage  '  the 
affairs  of  Nestorius,'  which  were  so  far  from  being  con- 
cluded that  they  were  now  to  be  conducted  with  the 
solemnities  of  a  Conciliar  decision.  The  tradition  of  the 
Church  is  quite  clear  to  the  effect  that  Celestine  was 
the  real  President.  Twenty  years  later  the  Council  of 
Ephesus  was  spoken  of  in  the  CEcumenical  Council  of 
Chalcedon  (including  some  who,  as  Juvenal  of  Jeru- 
salem, were  present  at  Ephesus)  as  having  been  con- 
ducted under  the  pilotship,  or  presidency,  of  Celestine 
and  Cyril — as  a  Council  'of  which  the  most  blessed 
Celestine,  the  president  of  the  Apostolic  chair,  and  the 
most  blessed  Cyril  of  great  Alexandria,  were  the  leaders,' 
or  (as  the  Latin  translation  is)  '  presidents.'  '^  And  in  its 
definition  the  same  Council  speaks  of  the  Council  of 
Ephesus  again  as  having  been  presided  over  by '  Celestine 
and  Cyril.'  ^  And  the  Emperors,  in  their  letter  after  the 
Council  of  Chalcedon,  confirming  the  sentence  against 
Eutyches  and  the  monks  who  sympathised  with  him, 
speak  of  the  Ephesine  Synod  as  the  occasion  '  when  the 
error  of  Nestorius  was  excluded,  under  the  presidency  of 
Celestine,  of  the  city  of  Eome,  and  Cyril,  of  the  city  of 
-Alexandria.'  ^  The  Empress  Pulcheria  uses  the  same 
expression.     And  the  letters  from  various  bishops  to  the 

'   TOUTTji/    iKfii$d(rei5    r-qv    aTr6<pa<Tiu,     Mansi,     iv.     1020  ;     rhu     tvtvou 
i^e^i^daafiev  iv.  1289. 

-  Ka0r7777Ta2— Lat.  '  praesides  '  (Mansi,  vii.  29).  ^Ibid.109.  *  Ibid.  501. 

D  2 


36         THE  COUNCIL  OF  EPHESUS 

Emperor  Leo,  written  after  the  Council  of  Chalcedon  in 
reference  to  the  troubles  at  Alexandria  under  Bishop 
Timothy,  show  by  the  way  in  which  they  attribute  the 
presidency  of  the  Council  to  Celestine  as  well  as  to  Cyril 
that  the  tradition  of  the  Church  was  clear  on  thispoint.^ 
For  instance,  certain  European  bishops  depose  that  the 
Council  of  Ephesus  was  gathered  together  *  under  Celes- 
tine, of  blessed  memory,  the  keeper  of  the  keys  of  the 
Kingdom  of  Heaven,  and  under  Cyril,  Pontiff  of  Alex- 
andria, of  holy  memory.'  And  the  bishops  of  Upper 
Armenia  call  the  Council  that  *  of  which  the  presidents 
were  Celestine  and  Cyril,  .  .  .  who  chiefly  shone  forth 
against  the  wicked  blasphemy  of  Nestorius.'  And  the 
tradition  was  equally  strong  among  the  Greeks  :  wit- 
ness, besides  the  instances  already  quoted,  their  Meno- 
logium  for  June  9,  where  Cyril  is  described  as  '  a  most 
learned  man,  champion  of  the  Catholic  faith,  whom  the 
supreme  Pontiff  Celestine  judged  a  fit  person  to  whom 
he  entrusted  his  own  place  in  the  Council  of  Ephesus.' 

That  Celestine  considered  Cyril,  and  that  Cyril  con- 
sidered himself,  to  be  acting  still  in  virtue  of  the  original 
commission  entrusted  to  him  by  Celestine  may  be 
gathered  from  the  questions  which  he  asked  Celestine 
before  the  Council,  such  as  whether  Nestorius  should  be 
received  at  the  Synod  as  a  bishop,  together  with 
Celestine's  reply,  in  which  he  says  '  Yes,'  and  commits 
the  whole  matter  to  Cyril  and  the  Synod.  '  It  belongs 
to  your  Holiness,  with  the  venerable  counsel  of  the 
brethren,  to  put  down  the  disturbances  that  have  arisen 
in  the  Church,  and  that  we  should  learn  that  the  matter 
has  been  finished  by  [effecting]  the  desired  correction.'  ^ 
*  It  belongs  to  your  Holiness,  with  the  venerable  counsel 

'  Mansi,  vii.  539-623.  ^  m^^  ly.  1292. 


ITS  FUNCTION  37 

of  the  brethren,'  is  a  sufficiently  plain  indication  that 
Cyril  was  held  by  the  Pope  to  be  acting  under  the 
original  commission  entrusted  to  him,  only  that  he 
would  now  act  with  the  help  of  the  Council.  This  letter 
is  dated  May  7,  and  was  written  the  day  before  the 
letter  to  the  Synod  which  was  committed  to  the  care  of 
the  legates.  The  messenger  who  brought  Cyril's  letter 
would  naturally  carry  back  the  answer  with  all  possible 
despatch,  and  there  was  ample  time  to  reach  Ephesus 
before  the  Council  met. 

Indeed,  it  is  hardly  conceivable  that  Cyril  should 
have  '  occupied  '  and  '  managed '  the  place  of  Celestine 
in  the  Council,  as  the  Acts  repeatedly  state  he  did, 
unless  he  had  some  intimation  from  Kome  that  he  was 
meant  to  do  so,  or  unless  in  the  judgment  of  the  Synod 
he  could  fairly  rest  on  the  original  Papal  commission. 
Dr.  Bright's  suggestion  that  '  Cyril  was  not  likely  to  be 
punctilious  in  such  a  matter,  and  might  well  assume  that 
Celestine  would  not  disallow  him  on  that  head  '  ^  ignores 
the  situation.  If  Cyril  was  not  likely  to  be  punctilious, 
others  were  ;  we  know  enough  of  Juvenal  of  Jerusalem 
to  feel  the  w^eakness  of  such  a  suggestion  ;  and  the 
Imperial  displeasure,  certain  to  be  manifested,  was  not 
likely  to  be  treated  as  of  no  account.  There  must  have 
been  some  safer  ground  on  which  to  rest  than  Cyril's 
mere  assumption. 

The  letter  of  May  7,  if  it  reached  Cyril  in  time, 
satisfactorily  explains  everything.  It  shows  for  certain 
that  Celestine  considered  Cyril  to  be  already  in  charge 
of  the  whole  matter,  which  would  now  be  concluded  in 
conjunction  with  the  Council.  And  it  is  impossible  to 
show  that  this  letter  had  not  reached  Cyril  before  the 

'  Roman  See,  p.  155. 


38         THE  COUNCIL  OF  EPHESUS 

Synod  began.  It  cannot  be  assumed  without  some  proof, 
that  '  no  desire  of  Celestine's  was  made  known  to  them 
until  the  arrival  of  the  legates.'^  Cyril's  messenger 
setting  off  at  once  would  travel  much  quicker  than  Papal 
legates,  whose  movements  were  proverbially  solemn  and 
measured,  and  he  might  well  have  escaped  the  storm 
that  overtook  the  latter  and  detained  them  so  long. 

So  that  if  we  take  the  narrative  so  far  simply  as  it 
stands,  it  results  that  (1)  the  Pope  had  given  a  decision, 
(2)  the  Synod  was  about  to  affirm  that  sentence  as  a 
matter  of  course^  and  (3)  that  Cyril  acted  not  merely  as 
Bishop  of  Alexandria  but  also  as  Papal  legate.  The 
rule,  according  to  which  the  Pope  now  acted,  is  thus 
described  in  a  letter  by  two  Alexandrian  clerics  cited  by 
certain  Episcopal  legates  sent  from  Pope  Anastasius 
towards  the  end  of  this  century  to  the  Emperor  Ana- 
stasius. They  say  that  '  whenever  in  doubtful  matters 
any  Councils  of  bishops  are  held,  his  Holiness  who  pre- 
sides over  the  Church  of  Eome  used  to  select  the  most 
reverend  Archbishop  of  Alexandria  to  undertake  the 
charge  of  his  own  place.' 

Cyril,  then,  acted  for  Celestine,  as  having  been 
originally  commissioned  by  him  in  the  previous  August 
to  manage  the  affair  of  Nestorius,  and  as  having  now 
the  office  devolved  upon  him  of  managing  it  with  the 
help  of  a  Council :  this  being  clear  to  the  Synod  either 
as  a  matter  of  course,  or  as  being  acquainted  with 
Celestine's  letter  saying  '  It  belongs  to  your  Holiness, 
with  the  venerable  counsel  of  the  brethren.' 

What  was  the  work  actually  before  the  bishops? 
The  question  has  been  asked,  '  Did  they  regard  them- 
selves as  simply  Celestine's  agents  for  the  carrying  out 

'  Roman  See,  p.  158. 


ITS  FUNCTION  39 

of  his  previous  sentence  against  Nestorius  ?  This  must 
have  been  their  view  if,  however  erroneously,  they  had 
regarded  the  commission  of  August  as  "  devolving  "  upon 
them.'  1 

To  answer  this  question,  we  must  ask  what  the 
writer  means  by  '  simply  .  .  .  agents.'  But  as  it  is 
difificult  to  be  sure  of  the  precise  meaning  which  we  are 
intended  to  attach  to  these  words,  and  as  the  mattej:  is 
one  of  supreme  importance,  it  will  be  best  to  say  what 
the  office  of  bishops  in  an  (Ecumenical  Council  involves 
on  the  Catholic  theory  as  expounded  by  the  Vatican 
Council,  and  lately  agam  by  Leo  XIII.  in  his  encyclical 
De  Unit  ate. 

According  to  Catholic  teaching,  the  bishops  in 
Council  have,  after  a  definitive  sentence  by  the  Eoman 
Pontiff,  an  office  of  examination,  and  a  capacity  to  pass 
judgment.  Their  examination,  however,  is  not  of  that 
kind  which  springs  from  any  doubt  as  to  the  justice  or 
truth  of  the  Pontifical  judgment.  It  presupposes  the 
binding  nature  of  that.  But  since  every  examination  is 
grounded  on  some  doubt,  or  supposes  something  that 
needs  clearing  up,  what  is  the  doubt  from  which  such 
examination  on  the  part  of  the  bishops  proceeds  ?  The 
answer  is  that  while  the  sentence  is  held  to  be  true,  the 
motives  that  guide  it  may  be  profitably  investigated,  not 
to  know  whether  they  are  just,  but  simply  what  they 
are.'-^  As  an  instance  of  the  first  kind  of  examination 
which  proceeds  from  doubt  as  to  the  truth  of  an  assertion, 
we  might  take  the  case  of  one  who  is  in  doubt  as  to  the 
immortality  of  the  soul.  He  begins  to  search  for  motives 
of  credibility  to  satisfy  himself   as   to  whether  it  is  a 

'  Roman  See,  p.  155. 

-  Cf.  Palmieri,  S.J.,  De  Romano  Pontifice,  1891,  p.  084  seq. 


40         THE  COUNCIL  OF  EPHESUS 

truth.  But  a  man  may  begin  with  a  firm  belief  that 
the  soul  is  immortal,  and  yet  examine  keenly  into  the 
motives  which  would  reasonably  lead  to  such  a  belief, 
especially  if  he  had  to  teach.  It  w^ould  be  a  case  either 
oi  fides  qucerens  intellectum,  of  faith  seeking  to  discover 
its  confirmation  in  the  department  of  the  natural  reason, 
or  of  searching  for  material  for  teaching. 

Now  in  the  case  of  bishops  in  a  Synod,  there  is  a 
very  obvious  motive  for  this  latter  kind  of  investigation. 
As  bishops  they  have  to  teach,  and  ought  to  be  able  to 
produce  the  proofs  from  Scripture  and  tradition  and 
from  the  analogy  of  the  faith,  in  the  case  of  a  dogma 
which  they  would  pronounce  to  be  true,  on  sufficient 
authority,  even  if  ignorant  of  these  elucidating  con- 
siderations. An  instance  of  this  kind  of  investigation 
is  to  be  seen  in  the  treatment  of  the  dogma  of  Tran- 
substantiation  at  Trent.  It  had  always  been  part  of 
the  deposit.  When  Berenger  first  started  an  opposing 
theory,  our  own  Lanfranc  showed  him  that  he  was  strik- 
ing against  the  belief  of  all  ages.  It  was,  he  proved, 
of  divine  faith.  The  particular  term  was  made  part 
of  the  Catholic  faith  at  the  Fourth  Lateran  Council.^ 
And  yet,  three  centuries  afterwards,  the  Council  of 
Trent  entered  upon  an  investigation  of  its  harmony 
with  Scripture  and  tradition.  Every  one  of  the  Triden- 
tine  fathers  held  the  judgment  of  1215  to  be  irreversible  : 
that  is  to  say,  every  one  of  them  believed  Transub- 
stantiation  to  be  a  matter  of  faith  before  it  was  subjected 
to  this  fresh  investigation.  But  in  view  of  surrounding 
and  increasing  Protestantism,  it  was  considered  necessary 

'  Not  all  that  is  of  divine  faith  is  included  in  '  the  Catholic  faith  '  : 
that  is  to  say,  not  all  that  is  believed  on  sufficiently  cogent  reasons 
is  made  an  article  of  external  communion  with  the  Church, 


ITS   FUNCTION  41 

to  examine  it  in  relation  to  other  truths.  As  St.  Leo 
says  of  the  examination  of  his  own  dogmatic  exposition 
of  the  faith  at  the  Council  of  Chalcedon,  '  the  truth 
shines  brighter,  and  is  held  with  firmer  hold,  when  what 
faith  had  first  taught  examination  has  afterwards  con- 
firmed.'    (£'p.  ad  Theodor.) 

The  bishops,  then,  are  assembled  in  Council,  not  that 
they  ma}^  learn  the  faith,  but  that  they  may  act  as 
judges  and  propose  their  judgment  with  authority. 
They  are  authoritative  teachers,  not  of  themselves  in- 
fallible, nor  supreme  in  authority  ;  but  their  judgment, 
nevertheless,  has  weight  and  authority,  for  they  are  set 
over  their  flocks  by  the  Holy  Ghost.  And  they  come  to 
a  Council,  not  to  see  whether  the  judgment  of  the  Koman 
Pontiff  (if  it  has  preceded  theirs)  is  true,  but,  whilst 
using  that  as  their  form  {TV7ro9),  to  make  an  honest  use 
of  their  judgment,  and  add  it  to  that  of  the  Pontiff. 
The  very  idea  of  the  Church  is,  that  she  contains  a 
successive  and  permanent  series  of  witnesses  owing  to 
the  grace  of  their  consecration,  though  infallible  only 
when  in  conjunction  with  the  See  of  Peter.  Their  judg- 
ment in  unison  wdth  his  becomes  a  conciliar  judgment, 
which  has  its  own  special  office  in  rendering  conspicuous 
the  unity  of  the  Church,  and  impressing  the  faithful 
with  the  divine  character  of  the  teaching  of  the  Supreme 
Pontiff.  Their  judgment  in  the  Synod  is  not  that 
merely  of  theologians.  These  have  no  authority  over 
the  faithful  through  any  grace  of  consecration  ;  bishops 
have.  If  any  number  of  theologians  were  added  on  to 
the  Supreme  Pontiff,  the  authority  would  simply  be  that 
of  one  man.  Not  so  with  the  bishops ;  they  are  not 
the  mere  tools  of  the  Supreme  Pontiff'.  They  are  sheep, 
but  also  shepherds  ;  taught,  but  also  teachers  ;  and  the 


42         THE  COUNCIL  OF  EPHESUS 

authority  of  their  judgment  added  to  that  of  the  Roman 
Pontiff  is  the  authority  of  a  conciliar  judgment.  This 
derives  its  infallibility  from  the  See  of  Peter ;  but  al- 
though the  decision  of  the  Holy  See  in  a  matter  of  faith 
delivered  as  obligatory  on  all  would  of  itself  possess  the 
seal  of  infallibility,  it  would  not  have  the  striking 
character  of  a  conciliar  judgment.  The  Episcopate  is 
a  reality  in  the  Kingdom  of  God  ;  and  its  judgments, 
however  dependent  for  their  infallibility  on  that  of  the 
Supreme  Pontiff,  have,  nevertheless,  a  vitality  of  their 
own.  Consequently,  on  the  one  hand,  a  General  Council 
is  never  simply  necessary,  but  it  is,  on  the  other  hand, 
in  certain  cases  eminently  useful.  After  the  Pontifical 
sentence,  the  Catholic  Episcopate  will,  as  a  matter  of 
moral  necessity,  conform  to  it;  but  while  thus  not 
morally  free,  it  is  still  a  gain  that  the  consent  of  so 
many  should  become  evident  and  conspicuous  in  fact, 
so  that  sound  doctrine  may  be  the  more  easily  defended, 
and  the  subtlety  of  heretics  kept  in  subjection.^ 

It  will  be  seen  from  this  short  exposition  of  the  rela- 
tion between  Pope  and  Council  in  Catholic  theology,  that 
the  devolution  of  the  Papal  sentence  against  Nestorius 
on  the  Council  would  not  suppose  the  bishops  of  the 
Council  to  be  simply  the  agents  and  instruments  and 
ministers  of  Celestine  in  such  a  way  as  that  they  had 
nothing  to  do  but  register  his  decision. ^  They  had  to 
bring  their  office  as  judges  into  play.  That  decision  was 
the  type  {rv-rros)  which  they  were  morally  bound  to 
follow.  The  Pope's  injunction  to  Cyril  was,  '  assuming 
the  authority  of  our  See  and  acting  with  delegated  power 

*  Cf.  Palmieri,  loc.  cit.,  and  Jungmann's  Dissertatio  de  Concilio 
Ephesino. 

"^  This  is  the  carieature  of  Catholic  doctrine,  presented  by  Dr. 
Bright,  Roman  See,  p.  155. 


ITS  FUNCTION  43 

[this  is  the  exact  meaning  of  the  Greek  word]  in  our  stead 
and  place,  you  will  execute  a  sentence  of  this  sort,  &c.' 
And  the  bishops,  as  we  shall  presently  see,  distinctly  say 
that  they  have  conformed  to  this  type,  or  decision.  The 
essence  of  the  decision  was  that  Nestorius  should  be 
condemned,  unless  he  repented  ;  a  detail  of  that  sentence 
was,  that  it  should  take  effect  ten  days  after  the  notice 
had  been  served  ;  but  the  circumstance  of  a  Council 
having  been  summoned  to  meet,  rendered  a  close  ad- 
herence to  this  detail  unadvisable.  The  Council  did,  as 
we  have  said,  expressly  state  that  it  had  adhered  to 
Celestine's  decision  ;  but  being  bishops,  with  a  capacity 
and  duty  of  judgment,  they  unfolded  the  motives  which 
might  be  supposed  to  have  guided  the  Pope  and  showed 
the  grounds  on  which  under  the  altered  circumstances  of 
the  case  that  sentence  necessarily  stood  firm.  Their 
obedience  would  thus  be  seen  to  be  materially  just,  as 
well  as  formally  good. 

Bearing  in  mind,  then,  what  it  is  that  we  have  to 
show  when  we  say  that  the  doctrine  of  Papal  Supremacy 
is  (as  the  Vatican  Council  teaches)  that  of  the  Primitive 
Church,  let  us  now  see  how  the  bishops  acted  at  the 
Council  of  Ephesus. 

The  first  session  was  held  on  June  22.  The  bishops 
met  under  difficult  circumstances  and  with  this  perplexity 
as  compared  with  subsequent  Councils —they  had  no 
precedents  for  an  (Ecumenical  Council.  The  Acts  of  the 
Nicene  Fathers,  if  they  had  ever  been  committed  to 
writing,  which  is  improbable,  had  perished.  The 
Council  of  Constantinople  was  not  (Ecumenical  in  its 
sessions,  and  had  not  yet  taken  its  place  among  the 
General  Councils.  Neither  had  they  the  advantage  of 
the  presence  of  legates  from  Eome. 


44  THE   COUNCIL   OF   EPHESUS 

One  thing,  however,  was  quite  plain  in  the  eyes  of 
the  Synod.  Before  Juvenal  of  Jerusalem  had  proposed 
that  the  Emperor's  letter  should  be  read,  Peter,  the 
Alexandrian  notary,  had  opened  the  proceedings  by 
stating  the  subject  before  the  Synod.  Nestorius,  he 
said,  had  created  a  disturbance  in  the  Church  by  certain 
doctrinal  expositions  ;  Cyril  had  endeavoured  to  persuade 
him  to  come  to  a  better  mind  ;  at  length  the  matter  had 
been  brought  before  Celestine,  Bishop  of  Kome,  by  whom 
*  u)hat  was  suitable, ov  meet,  had  been  written,  comprising 
a  clear  decision,  or  sentence.'  *  This  view  of  Celestine's 
letter  was  about  to  be  treated  as  beyond  dispute.  All 
that  they  did  would  assume  this.  For  in  their  third 
citation  of  Nestorius,  the  bishops  as  a  body  sent  word 
to  him  that  if  he  should  not  come  to  the  Synod  and 
reply  to  the  things  objected  to  him,  '  the  most  holy  Synod 
will  be  compelled  (avdyK^v  s^si)  to  decide  concerning 
him  the  things  decreed  in  the  canons  of  the  holy  Fathers.'^ 
It  is  obvious  that,  though  they  do  not  say  so  in  words, 
their  meaning  was  that  he  would  be  condemned  if  he 
did  not  defend  himself  by  disavowing  what  he  had 
written,  and  what  he  had  recently  said  in  Ephesus  itself. 
In  fact  (to  reverse  the  assertion  of  Dr  Bright)  they  '  ac- 
cepted Cyril's  and  Celestine's  estimate  of  the  language 
used  by  Nestorius.'  ^     When  Juvenal  of  Jerusalem  pro- 

'  Ttt  e(/C(5Ta  .   .   .  TVTTOV  (pavephp  irepUxovra,  Mansi,  iv.  1129. 

2  Mansi,  iv.  1136. 

•'  Roman  See,  p.  157.  Dr.  Bright  adds  that  they  did  not  '  treat  it  as 
already  proved  heretical.'  Of  course  not,  if  by  '  proved '  is  meant 
'  proved  by  a  logical  process  on  their  own  part  in  Council.'  But  they 
did  treat  it  as  heretical.  Dr.  Bright  has  an  extraordinary  note  on  the 
letter  of  the  Synod  referred  to  above.  He  says  {Roman  See,  p.  155) 
that 'this'  (it  is  'these  things'  in  the  Greek),  'in  the  sentence  first 
naming  Celestine,  expressly  refers  to  the  function  of  all  bishops  in  the 


ITS   FUNCTION  45 

posed,  in  the  first  session,  that  the  Nicene  Creed  should 
be  recited,  so  that,  after  the  matters  under  consideration 
concerning  the  faith  had  been  compared  with  that  Creed, 
those  that  agreed  should  be  confirmed  and  those  that 
disagreed  should  be  cast  out,  he  prefaced  his  proposal 
with  saying  that  Nestorius  had  '  refused  to  face  the 
Synod  out  of  a  bad  conscience ' :  i.e.  because  he  knew 
that  he  would  be  condemned.  Obviously  the  bishops 
had  settled  in  their  own  mind  (and  indeed  they  showed 
no  hesitation  about  saying  plainly)  who  was  in  the  right 
and  who  was  in  the  wrong,  and  there  was  no  idea  of 
questioning  the  Pope's  dictuyn  that  what  he  had  de- 
finitely settled  was  the  teaching,  not  only  of  Kome  and  Alex- 
andria, but  of  the  whole  Church  (cf.  supra,  p.  16).  To 
use  the  words  of  Dr.  Pusey  quoted  above,  '  the  mind 
of  the  Church  had  been  expressed  in  the  previous  year.' 

exclusion  of  false  doctrine.'  There  is  not  a  word  about  '  the  function 
of  all  bishops.'  The  Synod  merely  adduces  the  fact  that  the  Western 
bishops,  with  Celestine  present,  had  declared  that  all  such  (as  Nestorius) 
should  be  excluded  from  the  roll  of  bishops.  In  the  same  note.  Dr. 
Bright  says  that  Celestine,  in  his  letter  of  May  7,  '  neither  says  nor 
implies  '  '  that  he  meant  Cyril  to  be  President.'  It  will  be  seen  directly 
that  nothing  can  well  be  clearer  than  that  he  did.  In  the  text,  how- 
ever, to  which  this  note  is  appended,  Dr.  Bright  indulges  in  an  ignoratio. 
elenchi,  when  he  says  that  Celestine  had  not  '  instructed  his  actual 
legates  to  treat  Cyril  as  their  chief,  but  only  to  take  counsel  with  him.' 
The  question  is  not  as  to  whether  Cyril  was  to  be  their  chief  but  his 
relation  to  the  Council.  The  legates  were  sent  to  assist  him.  The  in- 
struction to  '  take  counsel '  occurs  only  in  the  latter  part  of  the  letter, 
and  refers  only  to  the  possibility  of  the  Council  having  been  concluded 
and  things  having  gone  wrong.  In  the  previous  part  of  the  letter,  the 
legates  are  told  to  do  whatever  they  shall  see  to  be  Cyril's  judgment 
{Quicquid  in  ejus  videritis  arbitrio  facietis) ,  not  '  07ily  to  take  counsel,' 
as  Dr.  Bright  puts  it.  Cyril  '  managed  the  place  of  Celestine,'  we  are 
told,  even  when  the  legates  were  present — which  could  only  have  been 
possible  by  reason  of  himself  being  a  Papal  legate.  Cf.  Mansi.  iv.  1301  ; 
o56. 


CHAPTER   IV 

THE    DEGRADATION    OF    NESTORIUS 

No  sooner  had  the  Synod  opened  than  a  question 
arose  as  to  the  mode  of  procedure.  Peter,  the  proto- 
notary  of  Alexandria,  assumed  that  they  would  commence 
proceedings  by  reading  what  had  passed  between  Cyril 
and  Nestorius,  and  Pope  Celestine.  This  would  have 
been  the  strict  canonical  order.  But  Juvenal  of  Jeru- 
salem, who  afterwards  in  the  Eutychian  disputes  gave 
so  much  trouble,  proposed  that  the  Emperor's  letter  of 
summons  should  be  read,  and  that  it  should  be  the 
'  torch '  to  guide  their  steps.  He  has  probably  been 
reported  badly :  for  it  seems  from  what  follows  as 
though  he  alluded  to  another  letter  from  the  Emperor, 
which  Count  Candidian,  the  Imperial  Commissioner,  had 
brought  with  him,  giving  commands  as  to  the  order 
of  their  proceedings.  This  was  an  irregular,  though 
not  an  unknown,  course  to  pursue.  The  Church  has 
sometimes  tolerated,  but  only  tolerated,  this  measure  of 
deference  to  the  Emperor. 

Candidian,  however,  endeavoured  to  keep  the  letter 
to  himself  until  John  of  Antioch  should  appear,  hoping 
probably  by  this  means  to  defer  the  sessions  of  the 
Council  indej5nitely.^  But  Cyril  obliged  him  to  read  it, 
and   Candidian  soon   left  the  Council,  and   afterwards 

'  Mansi,  iv.  1261. 


NESTORIUS  DEPOSED  47 

comijlained  that  there  was  not  gomg  to  be  any  real 
discussion  of  the  matter  at  issue.^  He  saw,  of 
course,  that  the  bishops  had  ah-eady  made  up  their 
minds. 

The  question  next  arose  whether  Nestorius  should  be 
summoned.  Cyril  seems  to  have  thought  that  he  had 
sufficiently  shown  his  contumacy  by  his  doings  at 
Ephesus  before  the  Council  met,  and  by  his  non-appear- 
ance in  the  Church  now.  But  he  was  persuaded  to  act 
in  the  most  thoroughly  canonical  way,  and  to  summon 
him  in  the  usual  solemn  form.^  Three  bishops,  with  a 
lector  and  notary,  waited  on  him,  but  in  vain.  Thrice 
he  was  summoned,  but  at  length  the  messengers  re- 
turned to  tell  that  they  had  been  treated  with  contumely 
by  the  soldiery  that  guarded  Nestorius's  dwelling.  The 
Synod  was  stupefied.  Nothing  remained  but  to  proceed 
at  once  to  examine  the  facts  of  the  case  concerning 
Nestorius's  heretical  teaching.  They  proceeded  accord- 
ingly to  set  the  case  before  them.  They  were  not  em- 
barking on  a  theological  investigation  of  the  doctrine  ;  ^ 
that  would  have  occupied  them  much  more  than  the 
remainder  of  the  day.  What  they  did  consisted  of  the 
most  summary  process  consistent  with  the  solemnity  of 
the  occasion.  They  w^ere  acting  as  judges,  albeit  in 
obedience  to  a  higher  court,  and  their  procedure,  however 
summary,  was  bound  to  be  marked  by  judicial  order. 

Accordingly,  at  Juvenal's  instance,  the  Nicene  Creed 
was  read.  For  it  was  against  that  Creed  that  Nestorius 
was  accused  of  having  offended.     Next  came  the  writings 

*  Mansi,  iv.  1263. 

2  Garnier  {Diss.  ii.  de  Synodis :  Pref.  to  Marius  Mercator)  thinks 
that  the  first  formal  notification  of  the  day  of  meeting,  having  been 
made  to  him  on  a  Sunday,  would  have  been  invalid. 

^  '  There  was  no  discussion,'  Harnack,  Hist,  of  Dogma  (Tr.),  iv.  187. 


48         THE  COUNCIL  OF  EPHESUS 

of  Nestor ius  and  Cyril  in  the  earlier  part  of  their  quarrel, 
for  this  was  necessary  in  order  to  understand  clearly  the 
subject-matter  of  the  Papal  judgment.  Then  Cyril's 
second  letter  was  read,  and  he  put  it  to  the  Council 
whether  this  was  not  in  conformity  with  the  Nicene 
faith.  They  admitted  it  as  a  part  of  the  rule  of  faith. 
Their  separate  short  speeches  are  given  in  the  Acts,  and 
must  have  occupied  considerable  time.* 

Then  Nestorius's  second  letter  was  read,  aiid  on  being 
appealed  to  by  Cyril,  the  bishops,  many  of  them,  one 
by  one,  gave  their  opinion,  and  at  length  they  all 
together  shouted  their  condemnation  of  the  letter  as 
impious,  heretical,  worthy  of  all  anathema.  Acacius, 
Bishop  of  Mitylene,  drew  out  the  points  in  which  it  was 
heretical,  and  the  bishops  again  shouted  their  ana- 
themas.'^ 

After  a  silence,  Juvenal  of  Jerusalem  proposed  that 
now  the  letter  of  Celestine  '  concerning  the  faith '  ^ 
should  be  read.  All  that  had  been  read  before  prepared 
the  way  for  this  :  without  the  letters  of  Cyril  and 
Nestorius  the  Papal  sentence  could  not  be  well  under- 
stood. 

Lastly,  Cyril's  letter,  written  in  execution  of  the 
Pope's  commission,  which  had  not  been  submitted  to 
the  Pope,  was  read  as  '  consonant  with '  Celestine's 
letter,  and  approved. 

It  was  then  clearly  established  that  both  Celestine's 

*  They  occupy  thirty  columns  in  Mansi  (c/.  iv.  1138-1168),  i.e. 
fifteen  columns  of  Greek. 

2  Dr.  Bright  calls  this  a  *  laborious  examination '  (Roman  See, 
p.  169)  ;  most  people  would  consider  it  a  very  summary  process,  so  far 
as  investigation  and  real  examination  were  concerned.  The  Boman 
Synod  gave  several  sessions  to  the  matter. 

3  Mansi,  iv.  1177. 


NESTORIUS   DEPOSED  49 

letter  and  also  this  last,  containing  the  same  doctrine 
and  the  Papal  sentence,  had  been  served  on  Nestorius, 
and  that  he  had  continued  im^Denitent,  not  only  beyond 
the  ten  days  originally  assigned  by  Celestine,  but 
even  up  to  the  day  of  the  Council.  Unless  this  was 
established,  their  action  would  not  have  been  regular  nor 
in  accordance  with  the  mind  of  Celestine,  as  expressed 
in  his  letter  to  Cyril.' 

Next,  a  number  of  passages  from  the  Fathers,  which 
had  been  previously  selected — probably  by  Cyril — were 
read  out,  to  show  that  they  were  acting  in  unison  with 
the  whole  past  of  the  Church ;  and  then  some  passages 
from  the  writings  of  Nestorius. 

Before,  however,  proceeding  to  the  sentence,  a  letter 
of  Capreolus,  Bishop  of  Carthage,  brought  by  Besulas, 
a  deacon,  was  also  read,  in  which  the  Bishop  trusted 
that  all  novelties  would  be  kept  out  of  the  Church,  and 
begged  that  '  the  authority  of  the  Apostolic  See  and  the 
unanimous  decision  of  the  hierarchy  '  should  be  con- 
sidered as  final  in  regard  to  the  Pelagians.  More,  it  is 
thought,  must  have  taken  place  on  this  subject,  for  St. 
Gregory  the  Great,  when  living  in  Constantinople,  had 
personally  inspected  the  matter,  and  tells  Narses  that 
the  Acts  of  the  Council  of  Ephesus  had  been  mutilated  by 
some  Easterns  in  respect  of  Pelagian  affairs  {Ejj20.  iv.  5). 

Then  followed  the  sentence  :  the  terms  of  which  are 
plain  and  simple  in  regard  to  the  relation  of  the  Council 
to  the  Pope.  They  correspond  exactly  with  what  we 
might  have  expected  from  the  outset.  The  Synod  had 
been  told  (what,  of  course,  it  knew  already)  that  Celestine 
had  written  '  what  was  suitable,  containing  a  plain  sen- 
tence {tvttov)'  ^     The   letter   containing  that   sentence 

'  Mansi,  iv.  1292.  -  Ibid.  1129. 


50         THE  COUNCIL  OF  EPHESUS 

had  been  read  out  to  the  Synod,  after  the  correspondence 
between  Cyril  and  Nestorius,  which  explained  the  con- 
tents of  the  Papal  ultimatum.  That  sentence  was  not 
to  take  effect  before  an  interval  of  ten  days  from  its 
reception  by  Nestorius  had  elapsed.  The  ten  days,  as 
has  been  already  explained,  were  naturally  (and  in 
accordance  with  Celestine's  mind)  prolonged  into  a  con- 
siderable interval  in  consequence  of  the  Council  be- 
coming the  occasion  on  which  the  Papal  decision  would 
be  executed.  It  had  been  established  by  competent 
witnesses  that  Nestorius  had  not  repented  of  his  heresy. 
The  Synod  had  sent  to  him  to  say  that  if  he  did  not 
appear  *  it  would  be  compelled  to  pass  sentence  upon  him 
in  accordance  with  the  canons  of  the  holy  Fathers.'  ^ 

The  Synod  accordingly  pronounced  sentence  against 
him,  degrading  him  from  the  Episcopal  office.  And 
this  they  did  (so  the  bishops  are  careful  to  say),  '  being 
compelled  both  by  the  canons  and  by  the  letter  of  our 
most  Holy  Father  and  fellow-bishop  Celestine,  the  bishop 
of  the  Church  of  the  Eomans.'  We  are  told  that  during 
the  solemn  pronunciation  of  the  sentence  many  of  the 
bishops'  eyes  filled  with  tears,  as  might  well  be  supposed 
in  the  case  of  a  vast  gathering  of  emotional  Easterns 
engaged  in  placing  one  of  their  own  number  out  of  the 
roll  of  the  Episcopate  ^ — many  of  them,  as  St.  Vincent  of 
Lerins  remarks,  men  of  great  holiness  and,  we  may 
assume,  not  without  their  feelings  of  tender  piety. 

'  Mansi,  iv.  1136  :  avdyKrjv  e|et  rh  SoKovpra  toTs  rwv  aylwv  irarepuv 
Kavo(nv  eTrl  (Toi  dpiaai. 

2  Dr.  Bright  pleads  that  we  cannot  suppose  that  they  literally  shed 
many  tears,  as  they  say  they  did,  and  that  since  this  part  of  the  state- 
ment is  not  literally  true,  we  need  not  take  the  rest  of  it  as  literally 
true— e.^.  when  they  say  they  were  '  compelled ' !  He  forgets  that  the 
Synod  repeated  the  latter  expression. 


NESTORIUS  DEPOSED  51 

*  Compelled  both  by  the  canons  and  by  the  letter  of 
our  most  Holy  Father  and  fellow-minister  Celestine ' ! 
Such  was  their  position. 

First,  the  canons.  The  reference  is  to  their  having 
acted  in  the  absence  of  Nestorius.  In  several  places  they 
speak  of  their  having  satisfied  the  requirements  of  the 
canons  through  their  threefold  summons  of  the  heretic. 
They  had  given  him  the  opportunity  of  answering  the 
charge  brought  against  him,  four  bishops  having 
repaired  to  his  house  to  acquaint  him  with  the  position  of 
things  ;  and  John  of  Antioch  had  expressly  commissioned 
two  bishops  to  tell  the  Synod  not  to  wait  for  him.  *  Do 
your  work,'  were  his  words,  *  if  I  delay.'  There  had 
therefore  been  no  violation  of  canon  law.  By  the 
canons  they  were  free  to  act,  and  indeed  compelled, 
although  the  guilty  party  was  not  present. 

But  this  was  not  all.  The  source  from  which  their 
entire  action  and  their  final  judgment  sprang  was  the 
letter  of  the  Pope.^  They  were  compelled  to  act  by 
reason  of  the  letter  of  him  who  was  at  once  their  '  Holy 
Father '  and  their  '  fellow-minister  : '  in  other  words, 
their  equal  in  sacerdotal  dignity,'^  but  their  superior  in 
authority.  He  had  been  asked  by  St.  Cyril  rvircoo-ac  to 
SoKovv,  to  formulate  the  dogmatic  decree.  He  had 
given  the  rviros  in  the  letters  written  to  Cyril,  Nestorius, 
the  clergy  of  Constantinople,  and  John  of  Antioch,  but 
especially  in  the  letter  to  Nestorius,  which  was  read  in 

*  The  preposition  by  which  they  express  their  obedience  to  the 
canons  is  a-rrS ;  that  by  which  they  express  their  obedience  to  the  letter 
of  the  Holy  Father  is  e/c.  That  the  word  '  compelled '  applies  to 
the  letter,  as  well  as  to  the  canons,  is  clear  from  the  conjunctions 
used,  viz.  re  .  .  .  Kai. 

■^  avWeirovpyov. 

E  2 


62         THE  COUNCIL  OF  EPHESUS 

Synod.  The  Council  could  do  nothing  else  than  yield 
obedience  to  this  letter.  This  the  bishops  declare  they 
have  done.  Their  action  in  condemning  the  Archbishop 
of  Constantinople  in  his  absence  from  the  Synod  was 
covered  by  the  canons  ;  their  action  in  condemning  him 
at  all  was,  they  averred,  a  simple  necessity  after  the 
letter  of  the  Pope.  Although  exercising  a  real  judgment 
on  the  subject,  as  the  record  shows  they  did,  they  were 
yet  under  a  moral  impossibility  of  differing  from  the 
Papal  sentence ;  they  were,  they  say,  '  compelled  [airo] 
by  the  canons  and  by  [i/c]  the  letter  of  the  Holy 
Father ' ;  and  in  delivering  this  sentence,  which  they 
thus  declare  to  be  in  its  origin  and  power  that  of  the 
Pope,  they  profess  to  be  acting  with  the  authority  of 
our  Lord  Jesus  Christ.  It  is,  they  say.  His  sentence. 
What  Celestine  said  of  the  sentence  as  it  passed  from 
his  lips,  that  it  was  '  the  judgment  of  Christ,  who  is 
God,'  the  Ephesine  Council  also  said  of  its  execution 
and  promulgation  by  themselves.  Pope  and  Council 
together  claim  the  prerogative  of  infallibility  :  the  Pope, 
in  defining  the  relationship  of  Nestorius's  teaching  to  the 
Christian  faith  ;  the  Council,  in  judging  after  the  Pope, 
*  compelled  '  by  his  Holiness's  decision. 

Bossuet  says  that  the  Council  was  not  necessary,  but 
it  was  expedient,  on  account  of  the  trouble  that  Nestorius 
was  able  to  create  through  his  influence  at  Court.  The 
Council  on  this  account  was  careful  to  note  that  its 
decision  was  due  to  the  nature  of  the  Papal  decision  :  that 
it  was,  though  the  act  of  free  men,  not,  in  every  sense, 
a  free  action  ;  it  was  a  matter  of  duty  to  join  themselves 
as  members  to  their  head,'  to  use  the  expression  of  the 
Papal   legate  in  the   third   session  ;    it  was  their  own 

'  Mansi,  iv.  1200. 


NESTORIUS  DEPOSED  63 

assertion  of  their  membership  in  the  teaching  body. 
The  obligation  which  was  thus  laid  upon  them  by  the 
canons  could  only  refer  to  Nestorius's  disobedience  to  the 
Synod,  which  compelled  it  to  enter  upon  the  question 
without  his  own  defence.  No  canon  had  dealt  with  his 
dogmatic  error  ;  but  the  canons  provided  for  the  judicial 
treatment  of  a  heretic.  But  the  letter  of  Celestine, 
which  laid  them  under  this  obligation  to  obedience,  had 
respect  not  only  to  the  deposition  of  Nestorius,  but  to 
his  heresy,*  for  it  provided  that  his  deposition  should 
follow  on  his  refusal  to  retract  his  error  in  regard  to  the 
matter  of  faith  within  ten  days.  And  although  the 
Pontiff  (as  we  know  from  his  letter  to  Cyril)  had  left  the 
execution  of  his  sentence,  including  its  delay  (if  deemed 
advisable),  to  the  Synod,  he  had  (as  we  know  from  the 
same  letter)  not  left  it  open  to  them  to  acquit  Nestorius 
in  the  event  of  his  obstinate  adherence  to  his  error .^ 
This  obstinacy  had  now  been  established  by  competent 
witnesses,  and  the  Council,  having  complied  with  the 
provisions  of  the  canons  in  summoning  him  three  times, 
was  '  compelled,'  in  obedience  to  the  Papal  sentence,  to 
depose  and  excommunicate  the  archbishop.  But  how, 
as  Ballerini  asks,  could  the  Ephesine  Fathers  be  *  com- 
pelled '  by  the  letter  of  Celestine,  unless  they  were  '  com- 

'    Cf.  Ballerini,  De  Vi  et  Batione  JPrimalus  Rom.  Pontif.  c.  xiii.  §  11. 

-  Mansi,  iv.  1292.  If  the  Fathers  had  not  yet  seen  this  letter,  it 
would  only  result  that  they  had  successfully  anticipated  Celestine's  wish 
and  placed  on  his  injunction  to  execute  his  sentence  the  only  rational 
interpretation — viz.  that  by  consenting  to  send  legates  to  the  Council 
as  they  knew  he  had,  he  had  left  his  sentence  to  be  executed  by  the 
bishops.  It  is,  however,  most  probable  that  they  had  seen  Celestine's 
letter.  Father  Bottalla,  S.  J.,  considers  this  certain  {Infallibility, 
p.  204  [Eng.  ed.] ). 


54        THE  COUNCIL  OF  EPHESUS 

pelled '  to  preserve  a  unity  of  faith  with  the  Eoman 
Pontiff? 

Now,  how  do  those  writers  who  maintain  the  indepen- 
dence of  national  Churches  deal  with  this  momentous 
utterance  of  the  Council  ? 

It  is  not  put  in  evidence  at  all  by  Canon  Bright  in 
his  article  in  Smith's  Dictionary  of  Christian  Bio- 
graphy on  St.  Cyril,  nor  in  that  by  Mr.  Ffoulkes  on  the 
Council  of  Ephesus ;  neither  does  it  appear  in  Canon 
Bright's  'History  of  the  Church,'  where  the  sentence 
on  Nestorius  is  thus  described  :  '  And  the  prelates  pro- 
ceeded to  depose  and  excommunicate  Nestorius  in  the 
name  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  whom  he  has  "  blas- 
phemed'" (p.  333). 

There  is  no  allusion  to  the  letter  of  Celestine  here. 

It  does  not  appear  in  Canon  Eobertson's  '  History  of 
the  Church ' — a  work  which  has  figured  for  so  many 
years  on  the  list  of  books  recommended  to  candidates 
for  ordination  in  the  Established  Church.  Dean  Milman^ 
quotes  a  part  of  the  sentence,  but  omits  the  crucial 
words  '  by  the  letter  of  our  Most  Holy  Father  and 
fellow-minister  Celestine.'  He  even  gives  the  Greek  in 
a  foot-note,  with  the  same  omission,  marking  that  there 
is  an  omission.  Dr.  Wordsworth  seems  to  go  a  step 
beyond  these  writers.  He  omits  the  crucial  word  '  com- 
pelled.' His  version  of  the  Synod's  sentence  is :  ^ 
*  They  then  declared  that  in  accordance  with  the  canons 
of  the  Church,  and  with  the  letter  of  their  Most  Holy 
Father  and  brother-minister,  Celestine,  bishop  of  the 
Eoman  Church,'  etc. 

'  In  accordance  with  '  is  certainly  not  an  accurate 

'  Hist,  of  Lat.  Christianity,  i.  211  (4th  and  revised  edition). 
2  Church  History,  iv,  216. 


NESTORIUS   DEPOSED  56 

translation  of  '  necessarily  impelled  by,'  nor  is  it  even 
a  fair  paraphrase  of  the  same.  A  very  strong  and 
exhaustive  term  is  here  used  in  the  Greek.^  And  not 
content  with  a  word  which  contains  the  idea  of  tremen- 
dous force,  they  add  to  it  the  adverb  '  necessarily.'  ^  And 
it  must  be  remembered  that  the  Greek  is  the  original 
here  ;  that  it  was  drawn  up  by  Easterns,  and  that  it 
was  the  Greek  which  the  Eastern  Fathers  actually 
signed.  Bossuet  thus  sums  up  the  situation  :  '  Autre 
chose  est  de  prononcer  une  sentence  conforme  a  la  lettre 
du  Pape,  autre  chose  d'etre  contraint  par  la  lettre  meme 
aussi  que  par  les  Canons  a  la  prononcer.  L 'expression 
du  Concile  reconnait  dans  la  lettre  du  Pape  la  force  d'une 
sentence  juridique,  qu'on  ne  pouvait  pas  ne  point  con- 
firmer,  parce  qu'elle  etait  juste  dans  son  fond,  et  valable 
dans  sa  forme  comme  etant  emanee  d'une  puissance 
legitime.'  ^ 

The  sentence  thus  expressed  and  signed,  the  Fathers 
issued  forth  from  their  (Ecumenical  Synod.  The  citizens 
of  Ephesus  were  in  an  ecstasy  of  joy.  They  had  waited 
for  the  sentence  in  eager  expectation,  not  as  doubting 
the  truth,  but  as  looking  forward  to  its  confirmation. 
And  upon  the  Council's  leaving  St.  Mary's  at  the  close 
of  the  day,  they  burst  into  the  wildest  applause,  and 
attended  the  orthodox  bishops  home  with  every  token 
of  honour,  Cyril  coming  in,  as  well  he  might,  for  the 
lion's  share  of  their  attention.  Torchlight  processions 
and  incense  accompanied  the  members  of  the  Synod  to 

'  KaTeireix&euTes,  which  is  a  strong  form  of  iTreixO^i/res. 

2  avayKaiws.  Cf.  St.  IrensBUs  on  the  necessity  of  agreeing  with  Kome, 
and  compare  1  Cor.  ix.  16. 

'  Remarques  sur  Vhistoire  des  Conciles  ...  de  M.  Duinn,  ed. 
VersaiUes,  1817,  t.  30,  p.  524. 


56         THE  COUNCIL  OF  EPHESUS 

their  residences,  and  the  very  ladies  of  Ephesus  turned 
out  to  manifest  their  joy  at  the  vindication  of  the  glory 
of  their  sex,  the  '  great  Mother  of  God,  Mary  most 
holy.' 

Candidian,  the  Imperial  Commissioner,  on  the  con- 
trary, soon  had  the  notices  from  the  city  walls  torn 
down.  The  deposition  of  Nestorius  was  then  proclaimed 
by  public  criers  in  the  streets.  Candidian  put  a  stop  to 
this  also  in  the  Emperor's  name.  The  Synod  had  de- 
feated his  hopes,  and,  as  the  event  proved,  he  was  bent 
on  causing  trouble.  Dr.  Littledale  thinks  that  he  makes 
a  point  against  the  '  Petrine  claims  '  of  Eome  when  he 
adduces  the  fact  that '  no  practical  impression  was  made 
on  Nestorius  or  the  bishops  of  his  party  '  ^  by  the  Papal 
sentence  ;  and  Dr.  Salmon  holds  ^  that  the  mere  fact 
that  the  decision  of  a  Council  was  not  received  at  once 
on  all  sides  is  fatal  to  the  infallibility  of  (Ecumenical 
Councils — an  argument  which  would  summarily  dispose 
of  our  Lord's  Divinity.  One  of  the  most  recent  theories 
about  our  Lord's  miracles  is  that  since  everybody  did 
not  at  once  yield  assent  to  His  claims,  no  miracles 
could  have  been  worked  ;  and  Dr.  Salmon's  is  only 
the  same  argument  applied  to  the  Church.  Certainly 
Nestorianism  did  not  cease  to  be  ;  indeed,  it  seemed  for 
a  moment  as  though  after  the  Council's  judgment  it 
might  gain  the  upper  hand.  But  what  of  that '?  Men 
who  could  repudiate  the  truth  concerning  the  Incarna- 
tion  could   and   did   rebel   against   the   Holy  See  and 

•  Petrine  Claims,  p.  98.  This  is  not  quite  true  :  seven  bishops 
came  round  to  the  orthodox  side,  and  Cyril  preached  a  magnificent 
sermon  on  the  occasion,  speaking  of  our  Lady  as  her  to  whom  we  owe 
our  baptism  and  everything  Christian,  as,  in  fact,  to  use  a  modern  term, 
the  Gate  of  Heaven. 

-  Infallibility  of  the  Church,  p.  426,  c. 


NESTORIUS   DEPOSED  57 

against  any  number  of  Councils.  Nestorius,  then,  and 
his  followers,  instead  of  submitting  to  Pope  or  Councils, 
had  their  weapons  ready ;  and  John  of  Antioch  was  to 
be  led  into  serious  sin  before  the  ultimate  triumph  of 
the  great  Patriarch  of  Alexandria. 


On  the  Council's  Use  of  KaTeTretx^eVrc?. 

It  has  been  objected  by  Dr.  Bright  {Boman  See, 
p.  159)  :  (1)  that  the  synodical  sentence  did  not  presurae 
*  the  compulsory  nature '  of  Celestine's  decision,  but  only 
said  that  they  were  '  irresistibly  urged '  or  '  impelled ' ; 
(2)  that  in  the  missives  to  Nestorius  himself,  and  to  his 
clergy,  the  Council  mentions  the  canons  and  not  Celes- 
tine ;  and  (3)  that  the  canons  and  Celestine's  letter  cannot 
be  treated  as  co-ordinate,  because  the  Council  had  not 
rendered  literal  obedience  to  that  letter. 

As  to  (1) :  the  word  used  by  the  bishops  for  the  impulse 
received  from  Eome,  KareTreixOivTeq,  is  a  strong  form  of 
i7r€Lx0^vT€<;,  '  impelled,'  since  such  is  the  force  of  the  prefix 
(see  Liddell  and  Scott  on  Kara  in  composition).  So  that 
Sophocles  translates  cTrec^ts  *  haste,  hurry,'  and  KaT67ret|tg 
'  violent  exertion  '  (Lexicon,  s.v.)  ;  and  Liddell  and  Scott  (to 
whom  Dr.  Bright  refers  as  his  authority)  translate  to.  l-n-eLyovTa 
'  necessary  matters,'  but  to,  Kamretyovra  '  urgent  necessity.' 
The  word  had  already  been  used  by  the  Emperor  in  his 
summons  to  the  bishops  to  attend  the  Council,  which  was 
compulsory  :  avvohov  tovto)  -^/j-wv  to)  OccnrLcriuaTt  KaTeTreiyecrOaL 
(Mansi,  iv.  1113).  The  Latin  version  of  the  sentence,  as 
printed  by  Mansi,  has  coacti.  And  the  old  edition  of  the 
Acts  (first  printed  by  Baluze),  which  was  used  by  Gregory 
the  Great  (who,  when  at  Constantinople,  specially  in- 
vestigated the  Acts  of  the  Council  of  Ephesus)  has  neces- 
sario  coacti  (Mansi,  v.  558).  Mansi  himself  in  his  Anim- 
adversiones    in    Natalis  Alex.  H.   E.  ix.  475,  translates   it 


58         THE  COUNCIL  OF  EPHESUS 

coacti,  and  remarks  on  the  superiority  thus  assigned  to 
the  Pope.  Pope  Nicolas  I.  gives  it  as  necessario  coacti 
(Ep.  9,  ad  Michaelem).  Valesius  translates  the  words  when 
quoted  by  Evagrius,  *  necessitate  compulsi '  {H.  E.  I.  iv.). 
In  the  first  edition  of  this  book,  I  translated  '  necessarily 
compelled ' ;  in  this  I  have  translated  '  compelled,'  as 
sufficient  for  clearness,  and  as  being  beyond  dispute.  No 
English  word  suits  the  Greek  verb  so  well  as  '  compelled ' ; 
but  with  dvayKaicos  added  to  it,  it  can  mean  nothing 
else.  In  their  letter  to  the  Emperor,  the  Synod  say  they 
*  praised  '  the  letter  of  Celestine.  This  does  not  prevent  us 
from  supposing  that  they  did  something  more  than  exalt  it 
in  word.  The  chief  praise  of  it  that  appears  in  the  Acts 
consisted  of  their  obedience  to  it  {cf.  Mansi,  Nat.  Alex.  H.  E. 
ix.  474).  They  honoured  it  as  men  honour  a  cheque  : 
eK/^tySa^etv — the  word  used  in  the  Synod — contains  the  idea 
of  a  debt  paid  (Sophocles,  Lexicon,  s.v.). 

As  to  (2)  :  Nestorius  already  had  the  Papal  sentence  ; 
there  was  no  need  to  state  what  was  obvious,  viz.  that  they 
were  following  that.  The  important  thing  to  state  was  that 
they  had  acted  canonically  in  condemning  him  in  his  absence. 
This  is  what  they  did  state. 

As  to  (3) :  the  canons  and  Celestine's  letter  were  either 
co-ordinate  or  one  was  inferior  to  the  other.  If  the  latter, 
either  {a)  the  canons  were  superior — but  then  the  order  of 
the  words  would  be  misleading  :  it  would  be  an  anti-climax  to 
speak  of  the  canons  and  the  letter,  instead  of  the  letter  and 
the  canons — or  (h)  the  letter  was  a  superior  authority ;  but 
no  one  places  the  Papal  letter  here  above  the  canons.  It 
remains,  then,  that  they  are  co-ordinated.  Whether  the 
Council  had  rendered  'literal'  or  substantial  obedience 
does  not  affect  the  question  ;  in  their  own  eyes,  they  rendered 
obedience.  They  said,  in  the  second  Session,  through 
Firmus,  that  they  had  '  executed  the  sentence  and  decree  ' 
of  Celestine. 


CHAPTER  V 

JOHN    OF    ANTIOCH 

An  extraordinary  scene  now  took  place  in  Ephesus. 
A  few  days  after  the  deposition  of  Nestorius  by  the 
orthodox  Synod,  John  of  Antioch  entered  the  city.  He 
had  sent  a  letter  to  Cyril  when  within  six  days  of 
Ephesus,  expressing  a  hope  that  he  would  be  there  in 
time.'  The  Synod  waited  no  less  than  sixteen  days, 
with  John  of  Antioch  near  and  able  certainly  to  reach 
Ephesus,-  when  two  of  John's  suffragans  arrived  with  a 
message,  saying,  *  If  I  delay,  do  your  work.'  ^  During 
this  unreasonable  halt,  messengers  going  to  and  fro 
became  firmly  convinced  that  John  was  anxious  not  to 
be  present  at  the  deposition  of  Nestorius.'*  This,  as  the 
Synod  told  the  Emperor,  was  the  real  cause  of  his 
abstention.  Cyril,  therefore,  and  the  bishops  knew  very 
well  that  they  might  delay  until  they  were  well-nigh 
decimated  if  they  waited  on  for  him.  Some  of  their 
numbers  had  already  died.'     All  this,  John  of  Antioch 

'  Mansi,  iv.  1121.  He  must  have  neared  Ephesus  just  about  Pente- 
cost :  c/.  Hefele  on  the  First  Session,  §  134. 

2  Ibid.  1331.  3  jjyi^^  1229. 

*  Ibid.  1333.  All  the  accounts  need  to  be  very  carefully  compared; 
the  result  will  confirm  Hefele's  commentary  on  this  whole  incident. 

*  In  his  Waymarks  in  Church  History,  Dr.  Bright  delivers  himself 
of  a  violent  attack  upon  Cyril.  But  Cyril's  words  are  seriously  mis- 
quoted (p.  148)  ;  his  speech  at  the  opening  of  the  first  session  is  mis- 


60  THE   COUNCIL   OF   EPHESUS 

must  have  known  well  ;  but  he  was  in  no  disposition  to 
help  Cyril  to  depose  his  friend  Nestor ius.  '  Plato '  was 
dearer  than  '  truth.' 

Meanwhile  he  had  become  the  centre  of  a  number  of 
malcontents,  whose  dubious  record  in  the  past  necess- 
arily made  them  a  source  of  mischief  to  the  orthodox 
party.  Some  were  excommunicated  ;  some  had  no  dio- 
ceses ;  others  had  been  deposed  by  their  metropolitans ; 
some  were  Pelagians,  and  some  had  been  ejected  from 
Italy.*  With  these  added  to  his  own  suffragans,  he  now 
entered  Ephesus  and  was  met  by  a  deputation  from  the 
Synod.  He  refused  to  hear  what  they  had  to  say,  and 
kept  them  waiting  while,  after  entering  his  house,  he 
held  a  Synod  composed  of  the  unpromising  elements 
that  had  gathered  round  him,  assisted  by  Count  Can- 
didian.  This  Imperial  Commissioner,  together  with 
Count  Irenaeus,  who  had  the  care  of  the  Imperial  pro- 
visions for  the  comfort  of  the  visitors,  had  set  to  work  to 
vex  the  orthodox  bishops  in  the  city  by  every  kind  of 
petty  persecution,  interfering  with  their  accommodation, 
and  making  it  difficult  for  them  to  get  the  necessaries  of 
life  in  a  strange  place.  The  members  of  the  deputation 
from  the  Synod,  including  bishops,  were  eventually 
subjected  to  physical  maltreatment,  and  presented  them- 
selves at  a  later  session  with  the  scars  of  their  wounds 
still  visible. 

represented  (p  157) ;  and  the  bishops  are  merely  said  to  have  been 
'  seriously  suffering  from  the  heat.'  But  some  had  actually  died 
through  want  of  accommodation  and  the  heat.  The  blot  in  Dr.  Bright's 
account  consists  in  his  not  paying  attention  to  the  reports  given  by  the 
orthodox  Synod  to  the  Emperor  and  to  Celestine.  And  his  dates  are 
wrong ;  c/.  Hefele,  §  134. 

'  Mansi,  iv.   1333.     The   ordinary   reading   is   '  Thessaly ' :  I  have 
adopted  Garnier's  suggestion. 


ANTIOCH'S   PROTEST  61 

It  is  difficult  to  understand  how  anyone  who  has 
weighed  the  evidence  with  care  as  set  forth  in  the  records 
of  the  Council  of  Ephesus,  can  suppose  that  John  was  in 
earnest  about  the  maintenance  of  the  faith,  or  that  he 
really  wished  to  be  at  the  Synod.  He  could  have  been 
there  easily.  Had  he  wished  to  uphold  the  orthodox 
faith,  he  would  have  presented  himself  at  a  fresh  session 
of  the  Council,  and  would  never  have  connected  himself 
with  such  characters  as  went  to  make  up  his  own 
entourage.  As  it  was,  he  held  what  he  called  a  '  Sacred 
Synod '  of  his  own,  with  these  adventurers  and  heretics, 
and  excommunicated  Cyril  and  Memnon. 

It  is  much  to  be  noticed,  however,  that  John  and  his 
Synod  did  not  defend  Nestorius's  teaching  about  which 
Celestine  had  written  to  John  in  condemnation.  Their 
ground  of  complaint  was  that,  contrary  to  the  canons, 
Nestorius  had  not  been  heard  ;  ^  and  that  Cyril's 
'  chapters  '  (his  twelve  Anathematisms)  had  not  been 
examined,  owing  to  the  disturbances  fostered  by  Cyril 
and  by  Memnon  in  Ephesus  itself ;  and  that  they  had 
not  waited  for  himself  and  others."^ 

It  is  to  be  noted  also  that  he  says  nothing  about  the 
absence  of  the  Westerns.  The  fact  is  that  the  Council  of 
Ephesus  was  not  strictly  oecumenical  in  its  first  session  ; 
for,  although  Cyril  acted  as  legate  of  Celestine,  his  action 
would  naturally  have  to  be  confirmed  by  the  Pope  in 
person,  or  by  legates  sent  for  the  purpose.  It  became 
truly  and  strictly  oecumenical  in  the  second  and  third 
sessions,^  as  indeed  it  seems  to  plead  in  its  second  letter 
to  the  Emperor,  written  immediately  after  the  third 
session.'     It  there  speaks  of  the  agreement  of  the  Papal 

'  Mansi,  iv.  1264.  ■-'  Ibid.  1267.  ''  Cf.  Chr.  Lupus,  Schol. 

in  Can.  Ep]ies.  c.  vi.  (T.  i.  p.  427,  a.d.  1G73).  '  Mausi,  iv.  1301. 


62         THE  COUNCIL  OF  EPHESUS 

legates  with  the  synodical  execution  of  the  sentence 
against  Nestorius,  as  carrying  with  it  the  agreement  of 
Celestine  and  the  whole  West. 

So  that,  although  there  is  no  knowing  what  John  of 
Antioch  may  have  been  disposed  to  do,  as  a  matter  of 
fact  his  quarrel  was  not  with  the  sentence  of  Celestine, 
but  with  the  mode  of  its  execution  by  the  Synod  under 
Cyril ;  neither  was  his  contention  that  Nestorius  was 
free  from  heresy,  but  rather  that  Cyril's  twelve  chapters 
or  Anathematisms,  which  he  had  called  upon  Nestorius 
to  accept  before  the  Synod,  contained  matter  allied  to 
Arianism,  Eunomianism,  and  Apollinarianism.^  But  he 
mainly  emphasised  the  uncanonical  character  of  the 
deposition,  owing  to  the  absence  of  Nestorius  and  him- 
self. There  is  one  keynote  which  runs  through  the 
utterances  of  this  schismatical  Synod  :  it  is  '  ecclesiastical 
lawlessness.'  They  professed  to  be  the  champions  of  ec- 
clesiastical order.  The  word  for '  order  '  ^  occurs  in  every 
kind  of  combination.  It  is  necessary  to  bear  this  in 
mind  to  explain  the  important  utterance  of  the  orthodox 
Synod  in  their  third  session,  when  they  speak  of  the 
Legates  having  spoken  '  suitably  '  (p.  85).^ 

The  schismatic  Synod,  having  excommunicated  Cyril 
and  Memnon,  had  their  sentence  posted  on  the  walls  of 
the  theatre,  which  produced  a  tumult  among  the  in- 
habitants. They  next  induced  Candidian  to  try  and 
prevent  these  two  bishops  from  offering  the  Holy  Sacri- 
fice on  the  following  Sunday ;  but  in  vain — Cyril  and 

»  Mansi,  iv.  1277. 

2  aKoXovOia :  this  word  occurs  again  and  again  in  the  utterances  of 
Candidian,  of  John  of  Antioch,  and  his  Synod.  Their  boast  was  that 
they  had  acted  aKoKovdoos,  in  canonical  order.     Cf.  Mansi,  iv.  1264,  1261, 

and  passivi  in  the  account  oi  this  Conciliahuluvi. 

'•*    OLKOKOvduS. 


ANTIOCirS   PEOTEST  63 

Memnon  refused  to  submit  to  such  interference,  and 
they  had  the  people  of  Ephesus  with  them.  These  strict 
adherents  to  their  bishop  also  precluded  all  possibility 
of  John  and  his  companions  installing  another  bishop 
in  place  of  Memnon ;  and  further  they  prevented  the 
schismatics  from  using  the  Church  of  St.  John  for  a 
service  of  thanksgiving  which  they  proposed  to  hold  for 
having  been  enabled  to  excommunicate  '  the  Egyptian,' 
as  they  called  Cyril,  and  his  tool,  '  the  Bishop  of  Asia 
Minor,'  as  they  called  Memnon. 

This  being  the  state  of  things  in  the  city,  we  can 
easily  imagine  the  joy  of  the  people  when  it  became 
known  that  the  legates  from  Rome  had  at  last  reached 
Ephesus.  Their  advent  formed  the  one  possible  counter- 
poise to  the  action  of  John  and  of  the  Imperial  Com- 
missioner. 

But  yet  another  trouble  rendered  the  presence  of  the 
Papal  legates  a  source  of  thankfulness.  Between  the 
first  Session  of  the  Council  and  their  arrival  from  Rome 
the  Synod  had  sent  its  letter  to  the  Emperor,  who,  under 
evil  influence,  had  quashed  the  whole  proceedings  of  the 
orthodox  Synod,  on  the  ground  that  it  had  met  without 
John  of  Antioch  and  had  not  properly  discussed  the 
matter  of  faith. ^  Candidian's  report  had,  in  fact,  suc- 
cessfully counteracted  the  report  of  the  Synod.^  Cyril 
at  once  did  his  best  to  answer  what  he  found  to  be 
Candidian's  falsification  of  the  whole  matter.  He  told 
the  Emperor  plainly  why  John  of  Antioch  had  absented 
himself,  and  what  kind  of  people  the  bishops  were  who 

'  Mansi,  iv.  1378. 

'  Cf.  Hefele,  Conc.-Gesch.  §  135,  for  proof  that  the  report  of  the 
Council  had  reached  the  Emperor.  Cyril  replied  to  the  Emperor's 
letter  on  July  1.  The  second  session  of  the  Council  with  the  Papal 
legates  took  place  on  July  10. 


64         THE  COUNCIL  OF  EPHESUS 

had  gathered  round  the  '  Oriental '  prelate.  He  claimed 
that  he  and  those  with  him  had  in  reality  the  presence 
of  the  Bishop  of  Rome  and  of  Africa,  in  fact  '  the  assent 
of  the  whole  West  to  their  canonical  deposition  of 
Nestorius.'  ^  This,  of  course,  was  through  the  fact  that 
Celestine  had  given  the  decision  which  the  Council  had 
followed,  as  we  shall  presently  hear  the  Council  saying 
totidem  verbis.  The  Africans  were  represented  by  the 
letter  of  Capreolus,  Bishop  of  Carthage,  giving  in  their 
adhesion  beforehand  to  the  destruction  of  all  '  novelties,' 
as  Nestorius's  teaching  was  called. 

Palladius,  whom  the  Emperor  had  sent  with  an  in- 
junction that  the  bishops  should  meet  together  with 
John  of  Antioch  and  discuss  the  matter  of  faith,  and  not 
leave  Ephesus  until  they  had  so  done,  had  taken  back 
Cyril's  protest.  But  before  anything  further  could  be 
heard  from  the  Court,  the  ship  that  bore  the  legates 
from  Rome  sailed  into  the  port,  and  soon  the  gates  of 
the  city  where  St.  Paul  had  preached  and  St.  John  had 
lived  with  the  '  Mother  of  God  '  were  flung  open  to 
receive  the  representatives  of  the  Prince  and  head  of 
the  Apostles,  bearing  with  them  authority  to  proclaim 
the  divine  Maternity  of  the  Virgin  of  Nazareth— in  other 
words,  the  literal  Godhead  of  the  world's  Saviour  born  of 
her  in  time. 

With  these  two  Bishops  and  the  accompanying  Priest 
another  power,  greater  than  that  of  earthly  kings,  had 
entered  upon  the  scene. 

'  Mansi,  iv.  1426. 


CHAPTEE  VI 

THE  SEE  OF  PETER  *  CONFIRMING  THE  BRETHREN.'  NO.  I 

2po  .  .  .  TTOiTja-ps  irdvTa  koto  rov  tvttov  rhv  BeixdevTa  aoi  iu  t<^  opci. 
'  See  that  thou  make  all  things  according  to  the  pattern  shown  thee  on 
the  mount.'     Heb.  viii.  5. 

So  far,  Cyril  had  been  obliged  to  act  under  difficulties 
without  the  aid  of  Papal  legates.  Celestine,  however,  had 
in  reality  sent  his  legates,  but  they  had  been  detained 
on  the  high  seas  through  stormy  weather.  They  arrived, 
as  we  have  seen,  in  July,  and  on  the  10th  a  solemn  re- 
ception was  held  in  the  Bishop's  palace,  which  counts  as 
the  second  session  of  the  Council. 

To  understand  the  meaning  of  the  legates'  action  in 
the  next  two  sessions,  we  must  be  careful  to  bear  in 
mind  the  instructions  they  had  received.  They  were  to 
place  themselves  at  once  in  Cyril's  hands — ad  .  .  . 
Cyrillum  consilium  vestnim  omne  convertite  et  quidquid 
iu  ejus  videritis  arhitrio  facie tis.  They  were  to  take 
care  that  the  authority  of  the  Apostolic  See  was  main- 
tained. They  were  to  be  present  at  the  session  of  tho 
Council,  and  if  by  chance  discussion  arose,  they  were  to 
judge  concerning  the  bishops'  opinions,  or  judgments 
\sententiis)  but  not  to  enter  into  the  arena  themselves 
— vos  de  eorum  sententiis  judicare  deheatis,  non  subire 
certamen.  If  they  should  find  the  Council  broken  up, 
they  must  inquire  how  matters  had  been  concluded.     If 

F 


66         THE  COUNCIL  OF  EPHESUS 

they  had  been  accomplished  in  favour  of  the  Catholic 
faith  and  the  legates  should  find  that  Cyril  had  decided 
upon  going  to  Constantinople,  they  must  go  there  also 
and  present  the  Papal  letters  (epistolas)  to  the  Emperor 
(Principi) .  If  things  should  have  g^ne  badly  and  matters 
should  be  in  course  of  discussion,  they  must  decide  what 
to  do,  judging  by  the  circumstances,  with  the  advice  of 
Cyril — cum  consilio  supradicti  nostri  fratris  agere  debe- 
atis} 

The  points  in  this  instruction  (or  Commonitorium) 
which  especially  concern  us  here  are,  that  the  legates 
were  to  act  as  judges  of  the  bishops'  opinions — vos  de 
eorum  sententiis  judicare  debeatis — and  that  if  the 
business  of  the  Synod  had  been  transacted,  they  were  to 
require  to  be  informed  as  to  how  that  business  had  been 
concluded — qualiter  fuerint  res  finitce. 

And  if  we  turn  for  a  moment  to  the  letter  of  Celestine 
which  they  bore  with  them  and  read  to  the  Synod,  we 
find  that  he  there  describes  the  office  committed  to  his 
legates,  in  these  words  :  '  We  have  sent,  out  of  our  care, 
our  holy  brothers  and  fellow-priests,  of  one  mind  with 
us  and  tried  men,  Arcadius  and  Projectus,  bishops,  and 
Philip,  presbyter,  to  be  present  at  the  transactions  [of 
the  Synod]  and  to  execute  what  has  been  already  decreed 
by  us,  to  which  we  do  not  doubt  you  will  give  your 

'  Mansi,  iv.  556.  This  letter  has  unfortunately  been  misinterpreted 
in  Eoman  See,  p.  154.  Dr.  Bright  there  says  that  Celestine  did  not 
instruct  the  legates  to  treat  Cyril  as  their  chief,  '  but  only  to  take 
counsel  with  him.'  Cyril  was  to  be  the  Chief  of  the  Council  (even  in  the 
presence  of  the  legates  together  with  them),  which  is  the  only  point 
at  issue,  and  the  legates  were  not  '  only  to  take  counsel  with  him.' 
This  was  enjoined  in  case  things  went  wrong.  It  is  difficult  to  give  one 
English  word  for  '  sententiae ' ;  its  meaning  varies  from  '  decision  '  to 
'  opinion.' 


THE   PAPAL   LEGATES  67 

assent,  when  that  which  is  done  is  seen  to  have  been 
decreed  for  the  safety  of  the  Church.'  ^ 

It  is  clear,  therefore,  what  the  legates  were  sent  to 
do,  viz.  to  watch  the  case,  so  to  speak,  on  behalf  of 
Celestine,  and  to  see  that  his  decree  concerning  Nestorius 
was  properly  executed  by  the  Council,  Cyril  remaining 
at  the  head  of  the  Council,  side  by  side,  as  it  were,  with 
themselves.^ 

At  the  session,  therefore,  in  the  Bishop's  palace, 
Cyril  still  presided,  '  holding  the  place  of  the  Bishop  of 
Rome,'  as  the  Acts  distinctly  state.^  The  Western 
bishops,  Arcadius  and  Projectus,''  and  Philip,  a  Eoman 
presbyter,  were  the  legates  of  the  Apostolic  See,  or 
throne.  The  West  was  thus  sufficiently  represented  by 
these  legates  from  Rome — a  significant  fact  as  to  the 
relationship  between  Rome  and  the  whole  West. 

Philip  now  led  the  way  and  laid  down  the  order  of 
their  proceedings.  Celestine  (he  said)  had  long  ago 
passed  a  definite  sentence  ^  in  his  letter  to  Cyril  con- 
cerning the  matter  in  hand,  and  he  has  now  sent  a  letter 
to  your  Holiness  for  the  confirmation  of  the  Catholic 
faith.  '  Order  that  this  be  read  in  a  fitting  manner  to 
the  Synod,  and  entered  in  the  ecclesiastical  records.' 

Arcadius  and  Projectus  followed  in  the  same  strain. 

Cyril  at  once  directed  that  the  Papal  letter  be  read 
*  with   befitting   respect.'      It   was    read,   according    to 

»  Mansi,  iv.  :|287. 

2  So  Hefele,  Conc.-Gesch.  §  5  (6).  ^  Mansi,  iv.  1279. 

*  These  two  bishops  represented  the  West,  not  as  having  been 
selected  by  the  Western  episcopate,  but  as  having  been  appointed  by 
the  Pope  in  Synod.  They  are  called,  when  their  oflSice  is  given  in  full, 
'  legates  of  the  Apostolic  See,'  or  of  '  the  Church  of  the  Komans.' 
Both  Projectus  and  Arcadius  are  thus  designated,  Mansi,  iv.  1297,  1299. 

f2 


68        THE  COUNCIL  OF  EPHESUS 

custom  in  the  case  of  a  solemn  communication  from 
Eome,  in  the  original  Latin,  by  Siricius,  a  notary  of  the 
Church  of  Eome.^  The  Bishop  of  Jerusalem  at  once 
proposed  that  it  should  now  be  translated  into  Greek. 
Philip,  the  legate,  informed  the  assembly  that  he  had 
made  provision  for  this,  and  that  the  honour  due  to  a 
letter  from  the  Pope — i.e.  that  of  reading  the  ipsissima 
verba  in  Latin — having  been  paid  to  it,  he  could  furnish 
them  with  an  authorised  translation  into  Greek,  which 
he  had  brought  with  him.  The  other  legates  echoed 
Philip's  words. 

The  burden  of  the  Pope's  letter  was  that,  as  bishops, 
they,  including  himself,  had  entered  into  the  work  and 
office  of  the  Apostolate,  and  that  their  common  function 
was  to  preserve  the  faith.  '  The  custody  of  what  has 
been  delivered  is  no  less  an  honour  than  the  office  of 
delivering  it '  [in  the  first  instance].  The  Council  was 
as  it  were  the  successor  of  the  Council  at  Jerusalem  in 
the  Acts  of  the  Apostles  :  He  who  was  with  the  Apostles 
then  will  assuredly  be  with  their  successors  now.  They 
have  a  common  command,  a  common  work,  an  office  in 
common  with  the  Apostles  who  sowed  the  seed  which 
they,  as  bishops,  have  now  to  nurse  into  fruit.  St.  Paul's 
charge  to  Timothy  applies  to  them  his  successors — '  the 
same  place,  the  same  cause,  demands  the  same  office  and 
ministry  '  (Lat.  officium,  Gk.  hiaKovlav).  '  Let  there  be 
prayer  made  in  common  to  the  Lord.'  Let  them  pray 
that  they  may  be  strong  to  proclaim  the  faith.  Celestine 
ends  with  telling  the  Synod  that  he  has  sent  his  legates 
to  be  present  at  the  acts  of  the  Synod  and  to  execute  the 
decision  previously  given  by  himself,  being  assured  that 

'  The  members  of  the  schismatical  Synod  all  stood  up  when  the 
Emperor's  letter  was  read, 


THE   PAPAL   LEGATES  69 

the  bishops  will  acquiesce  in  this  when  they  see  that  it 
was  a  decision  in  the  interest  of  the  Church  {qucB  a 
nobis  a7itea  statuta  sunt  exequa^itur  [i.e.  the  legates 
through  the  Council].  Quibus  [i.e.  the  *  ayitea  statuta  '] 
prcBstandum  a  vestra  sanctitate  non  dubitamus  assensum 
&c.  (Mansi,  iv.  1287). 

The  bishops  exclaimed  at  once :  '  This  is  a  just  judg- 
ment. The  Synod  gives  thanks  to  the  new  Paul,  Celestine, 
the  new  Paul,  Cyril ' — in  allusion  to  the  exhortation  of 
St.  Paul  to  Timothy  when  Bishop  at  Ephesus,  which 
Celestine  had  mentioned  in  his  letter.  They  continued  : 
'  [We  give  thanks]  to  Celestine  the  guardian  of  the  faith,  ^ 
to  Celestine  of  one  mind  with  the  Synod,  to  Celestine 
the  whole  Synod  gives  thanks.  One  Celestine,  one  Cyril, 
one  faith  of  the  Synod,  one  faith  of  the  whole  world.' 

Projectus,  the  legate,  then  took  up  the  practical  point 
of  the  Papal  letter,  and  requested  that  the  Synod  would 
see  that  what  Celestine  had  long  ago  decided,  and  now 
recalled  to  their  remembrance,  should  be  accomplished 
with  perfect  exactness.^ 

Whereupon  Firmus,  a  successor  of  St.  Basil  in  the 
see  of  Csesarea,  rose  and  described  the  nature  of  the 
Council's  action.  He  said  that  the  Apostolic  See  of 
Celestine  '  had  previously  given  a  sentence  and  decree  by 

*  These  words  are  omitted  in  Dr.  Bright's  list  of  their  exclamations, 
Hist,  of  the  Church,  p.  336.  His  defence  {Rovian  See,  p.  162)  is,  that 
such  words  are  not  to  be  taken  literally,  because  at  the  Council  of 
Chalcedon  the  Emperor  was  called  '  a  teacher  of  the  faith.'  The 
Emperor,  when  a  Christian,  and  when  he  provided  for  the  safe  conduct 
of  the  bishops  and  for  the  execution  of  their  canons,  loas  as  he  is 
called,  a  guardian  and  a  teacher  of  the  faith.  The  Pope  was  so  called 
because  of  his  corresponding  relation  to  the  faith  in  spirituals. 

2  'iva  ravra,  &  Kal  iraKai  wpiffc  [i.e.  Celestine]  /col  vvv  viTOixvT)aai 
Karrj^iuxrep,  els  irepas  KeAeutrrjTe  irXripiffraTOv  &ye(rdai,  Kara  rbv  Kavova  ttjs 
Koivrjs  iriffrews  (Mansi,  iv.  1287). 


70  THE  COUNCIL   OF  EPHESUS 

letters  sent  to  Cyril,  Juvenal,  and  Eufus,  and  to  the 
Churches  of  Constantinople  and  Antioch,  which  (decree) 
the  Synod  had  followed.'  For  the  time,  he  added,  fixed 
by  Celestine  for  Nestorius's  amendment  had  passed,  and 
the  day  fixed  by  the  Emperor  for  their  assembly  had 
also  passed,  and  Nestorius  had  not  put  in  an  appearance. 
Consequently  'we  executed  the  sentence  [of  the  Pope] 
{rbv  TVTTov  i^£^t/3d(TafjLsv)f  having  pronounced  a  canonical 
and  Apostolical  judgment.'  ^ 

In  short,  the  Synod  by  the  mouth  of  Bishop  Firmus, 
affirmed  that  (1)  the  Pope  had  issued  a  decree  condemn- 
ing Nestorius  ;  (2)  the  Synod  had  executed  that  decree  ; 
(3)  its  judgment  in  execution  of  the  Papal  decree  was  (a) 
canonical :  we  know  why,  i.e.  because  they  had  properly 
cited  Nestorius  and  he  had  not  appeared  ;  therefore  they 
were  justified  in  condemning  him  in  his  absence ;  and 
(/8)  it  was  Apostolical.  Why  '  Apostolical '  ?  Firmus 
had  spoken  in  the  same  breath  of  Celestine's  '  Apostolic 
See  '  and  Celestine  (in  the  letter  just  read  in  which  he 
insists  upon  the  legates  executing  his  sentence  on  Nes- 
torius, which  Firmus  says  the  Synod  has  executed)  had 
urged  the  bishops  to  imitate  the  Apostle  St.  Paul  by 
boldly  proclaiming  the  faith  in  common  or  concert  with 
himself.  The  meaning,  therefore,  of  Firmus's  description 
of  the  Sy nodical  judgment  as  '  Apostolical  '  is  obvious. 

The  legate  Arcadius  thereupon  asked  that  the  decree 
of  the  Synod  (re  Tcrvirwrai)  should  be  submitted  to  their 

'  When,  therefore,  Dr.  Bright  says  that  in  the  conciliar  sentence 
{supra,  p.  58)  '  the  canons  and  Celestine's  letter  to  Nestorius  cannot 
here  be  treated  as  co-ordinate  ;  for  the  Council  had  not  rendered  literal 
obedience  to  that  letter,'  he  obscures  the  issue,  since  the  question  is  not 
whether  literal  obedience,  but  whether  substantial  and  formal  obedience 
had  been  rendered  to  the  Papal  letter.  The  Synod  considered  that 
such  obedience  had  been  rendered. 


THE  PAPAL  LEGATES  71 

inspection.  He  also  spoke  of  the  stress  of  weather 
which  had  detained  him  and  his  fellow  legates  at  sea. 
Philip  followed  congratulating  the  Synod  on  having 
joined  themselves  '  as  holy  members  to  their  holy  head 
by  their  exclamations  '  when  the  letter  of  Celestine  was 
read.  '  For  your  blessedness  is  not  ignorant  that  the 
head  of  the  whole  faith  and  of  the  Apostles  is  the 
blessed  Apostle  Peter.'  In  other  words,  the  teaching  of 
the  Catholic  and  Koman  Church  at  this  hour  was 
declared  by  him  to  be  the  teaching  of  all  there  present. 
He  then  expatiated  on  the  stormy  weather  which  had 
detained  them,  and  requested  them  to  order  that  what  had 
been  done  before  their  arrival  should  be  shown  to  them, 
'  so  that  in  accordance  with  the  mind  of  our  blessed  Father 
and  of  this  present  assembly,  we  may  confirm  them.'  ^ 

Theodotus,  Bishop  of  Ancyra,  after  this  important 
speech  from  Philip,  rose  and  said  that  Almighty  God  had 
shown  that  the  sentence  of  the  Synod  was  a  just  one, 
by  the  auspicious  arrival  ^  of  the  Pope's  letter  and  by 
the  presence  of  the  legates.     He  added  '  for  you  have 

'  Philip  adds  bfxoiws  t^  avruu  Karadean,  which  the  Latin  translates 
conformiter  eoruni  depositioni.  It  is  difficult,  however,  to  suppose  that 
Philip  would  speak  of  the  members  of  the  Synod,  in  their  presence,  in 
the  third  person.  And  if  they  (the  members  of  the  Synod)  were  intended, 
'  deposition  '  would  more  naturally  be  in  the  plural.  Further,  Philip's 
speech  and  that  of  Arcadius  is  headed  '  interpretatio  depositionis.'  80 
that  the  true  reading  is  probably  havruv — '  our  own.'  Whichever 
reading,  however,  we  adopt,  the  point  is  that  Philip  was  sent  to  confirm 
the  judgment  of  the  Synod  if  it  was  in  accordance  with  the  Pope's,  and 
that  the  Synod  had  now  declared  that  it  was. 

^  Gk.  iirKpoiT-fiaei.  It  is  a  strong  word,  generally  used  of  the  arrival 
of  a  messenger  from  God,  especially  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  Cf.  Dindorf, 
Steph.  Thesaur.  iii.  1881.  Dr.  Bright  has  made  a  jumble  of  Theodotus's 
speech :  he  has  wrongly  connected  the  limbs  of  the  sentence  {Roman 
See,  p.  163).  He  has  left  out  '  the  presence  of  the  legates,'  which 
was  part  of  the  proof  of  the  Divine  approval  mentioned  by  Theodotus, 


72        THE  COUNCIL  OF  EPHESUS 

shown  both  the  zeal  and  the  eagerness  concerning  the 
holy  faith  possessed  by  the  most  holy  and  sacred  Bishop 
Celestine  '  :  that  is  to  say,  Almighty  God  has  set  his 
seal  upon  our  action  by  permitting  the  letter  of  Celestine 
to  reach  us,  and  Celestine  has  shown  his  zeal  in  his  letter 
(which  by  anticipation  affirms  the  justice  of  our  sentence) 
and  in  sending  yourselves  with  it.  Theodotus  then  said  in 
the  name  of  the  Synod  that  the  Acts  should  be  submitted 
to  the  legates  for  their  inspection,  and  that  they  would  in 
turn  see  in  them  the  zeal  of  the  Bishops  and  their  '  agree- 
ment in  the  faith  which  Celestine  proclaims  with  weighty 
voice.'  ^ 

The  legates  accordingly  retired  for  the  evening  to 
inspect  the  transactions  of  the  Synod  at  its  first  session. 


Note. 

It  would  be  wearisome  to  the  reader  to  be  dragged 
through  all  the  various  criticisms  which  Dr.  Bright  has 
passed  on  the  history  of  the  Council  of  Ephesus  as  given  in 
the  first  edition  of  this  book.  I  have  given  several  and 
shown  what  they  are  worth.  I  will  here  select  one  for 
greater  detail,  as  a  specimen.  In  reference  to  Pope  St. 
Celestine's  letter  to  the  Synod,  Canon  Bright  asks  *  Is  not 
Fleury   warranted   in  saying   that  Celestine  here   "places 

and  which,  conbidering  what  had  just  been  said,  shows  that  Theodotus 
looked  upon  their  presence  in  the  same  hght  as  Philip  did.  Theodotus 
does  not  say  (as  Dr.  Bright)  '  it  shows,'  but  'you  showed.' 

'  T^j/  0vix<pu}viav  T^s  TT.crT€(D$  ^v  KeAecTTtvoy  /xeyaKT)  Kr)pxi(r<X€i  rp 
<p<Dv^.  It  is  impossible  to  translate  the  subtle  suggestiveness  of  the 
Greek  here,  in  the  use  of  the  words  av/xcpwviav  and  (poovrj.  The  Synod's 
utterance  was  one  with  the  weighty  utterance  of  the  Pope,  is  the  full 
meaning. 


THE   PAPAL   LEGATES  73 

himself  in  the  rank  of  bishops  "  ? '  Of  course  he  does ; 
he  was  Bishop  of  Eome.  But  Fleury  is  really  quoted  to 
support  Dr.  Bright' s  theory  that  the  Popes  are  on  a  level 
with  other  bishops  in  point  of  jurisdiction.  Now  Fleury 
mistranslates  the  words  in  commune  in  Celestine's  letter  as 
though  they  were  the  same  as  the  French  egalemejit.  Dr. 
Bright  for  some  years  did  the  same.  (Cf.  The  Bomaii 
Claims,  dx.,  p.  11,  1877.) 

The  origin  of  this  seems  to  be  as  follows.  Mr.  Allies, 
before  he  was  a  Catholic,  in  his  work  entitled  The  Church 
of  England  cleared  from  Schism  was  misled  by  Fleury  in  this 
passage  ;  and  Dr.  Pusey  in  his  Eirenicon  was  misled  by  Mr. 
Allies  and  by  Fleury,  to  both  of  whom  he  refers.  He  makes 
it  a  difficulty  which  he  calls  insuperable,  that  Celestine  should 
be  considered  infallible  and  yet  that  he  should  have  said  to 
the  bishops  that  the  teaching  office  had  descended  upon  them — 
himself  and  them — equally  (he  itahcises  this  word  '  equally  '). 
Dr.  Bright  also  refers  to  Fleury  in  his  Boman  Claims,  d'C, 
p.  11,  and  mistranslates  Celestine's  '  in  common  '  as  though 
it  were  'equally.'  It  is  obvious,  however,  that  the  two 
are  not  the  same.  A  general  and  a  captain  may  have  a 
common  wx)rk,  yet  they  are  not  equal.  Their  mission  may 
be  due  to  one  and  the  selfsame  order  from  headquarters  (an 
order  common  to  all)  to  take  a  fort,  or  clear  a  hill.  So  again 
*  The  Book  of  Common  Prayer '  does  not  mean  that  the 
clergyman  and  the  people  are  on  an  equality  in  the  conduct 
of  the  service.  Dr.  Bright,  in  reference  to  this  objection, 
says,  *  Where  does  he '  {i.e.  Celestine  in  this  letter  to  the 
Synod)  *  say  that  it '  (the  teaching  office)  '  has  come  to  him 
in  a  unique  sense  as  the  teacher  of  the  Church  universal  ?  ' 
But  Dr.  Bright  must  know  very  well  that  that  was  not  the 
question.  The  question  I  raised  was  this.  Does  the  expression 
'in  common,'  which  Dr.  Bright  had  translated  'equally,* 
contradict  the  claim  to  a  superior  position  in  the  common 
work  ?  Dr.  Bright  used  this  word  *  equally  '  to  establish 
this  contradiction.     It  would  surely  have  been  well  not  to 


74        THE  COUNCIL  OF  EPHESUS 

have  introduced  Fleury  again,  considering  the  way  in  which 
Doctor  Pusey,  and  Dr.  Bright  himself,  have  been  misled  by 
him.  Dr.  Bright  adds  (Bonian  See,  p.  162),  *  It  is  true 
that  he  [Celestine]  refers,  at  the  end,  to  what  he  had 
"previously  ordained  "as  to  be  "  carried  out"  by  his  three 
legates.'  As  so  often  in  Dr.  Bright's  book,  the  words  '  it  is 
true '  introduce  something  the  mention  of  which  saves 
him  from  the  imputation  of  not  quoting  what  makes  for  the 
other  side ;  but  it  is  something  which  positively  contradicts 
his  conclusion.  So  here  Celestine,  having  spoken  of  himself 
and  the  bishops  as  having  a  common  command  from  Christ, 
and  duties  in  common,  such  as  proclaiming  what  they  know 
about  the  faith,  at  once  places  himself  at  their  head  in  this, 
their  common  work,  ordering  that  his  previous  decree, 
condemning  Nestorius,  should  be  carried  out.  Dr.  Bright 
is  only  throwing  dust  in  people's  eyes  when  he  says  that 
Celestine  'never  claims  any  sole  authority'  (p.  161).  No 
Pope  ever  did,  from  St.  Peter  to  Leo  XIII.  They  claimed 
it  as  head  of  the  body,  not  as  sole  in  the  sense  of  separate,  and 
excluding  the  bishops.  It  is  no  part  of  the  Papal  theory 
that  the  Pope  should  thus  be  sole  in  authority,  and  Dr. 
Bright  ought  not  to  suggest  that  the  writer,  whom  he 
criticises,  ever  made  it  part  of  the  Papal  claim.  On  the 
other  hand,  in  calling  himself  a  sharer  in  a  common  work, 
Celestine  does  not  place  himself  on  an  equality  with  all 
other  bishops  absolutely  and  in  every  respect.  A  common 
work  admits  of  diversity  of  share.  When  Dr.  Bright  says 
also  of  Celestine  (loc.  cit.)  that  '  he  never  even  alludes  to  his 
own  see  as  that  of  Peter,'  he  must  mean  '  in  that  letter.' 
But  why  should  he  in  that  letter  ?  No  one  supposes  that 
Philip  did  not  reflect  the  teaching  of  Celestine  ;  in  fact 
Dr.  Bright  sarcastically  describes  Phihp  as  speaking  more 
Bomano.  Now  Philip  grounded  the  Papal  action  on  the  fact 
of  the  Pope  being  the  successor  of  Peter. 


CHAPTEE   VII 

THE    SEE    OF    PETER    '  CONFIRMING    THE    BRETHREN  ' — NO.    II 

On  the  following  day  the  Council  reassembled,  the 
legates  having  overnight  examined  the  transactions 
submitted  to  them.  There  can  be  no  question  as  to 
what  the  Synod  considered  itself  to  have  done.  It  had 
on  the  previous  day  publicly  and  formally  announced 
that  it  had  executed  the  Papal  sentence  in  condemning 
Nestorius.  Bishop  Firmus  had  said  so  in  the  name  of 
the  Synod.  But  the  question  still  remained,  had  they 
done  so  in  canonical  fashion  ?  Had  they  heard,  or  been 
willing  to  hear,  Nestorius  in  his  own  cause,  if  he  desired 
it?  Had  they  satisfied  themselves  that  he  had  not 
repented  in  the  interval  between  the  sentence  of  the 
Pope  and  the  meeting  of  the  Council,  as  Celestine  told 
Cyril  it  was  incumbent  on  them  to  do  ?  ^  The  business 
before  them  was  the  formal  ratification  {/Ss^aicoats)  of 
the  Acts :  so  it  was  described  by  Celestine  himself."^ 
The  legates  knew,  too,  that  John  of  Antioch  had  accused 
the  Synod  of  not  actmg  in  canonical  order  (uKoXovdcos). 
Was  this  true  ?  This  was  the  question  to  be  settled 
canonically  (afcoXovOcos). 

Juvenal   of   Jerusalem  accordingly   rose  and  asked 

•  Mansi,  iv.  1292. 

2  *Eequirendum  est  qualiter  fuerint  res  finitae.'     Celestine's  Coin- 
monitorium  to  the  legates  {ibid.  556). 


76        THE  COUNCIL  OF  EPHESUS 

the  legates  if  they  had  read  the  transactions  of  the  Synod 
and  learnt  their  purport ;  to  which  Philip  replied  that 
they  had  perused  the  Acts  and  that  all  things  had  been 
done  canonically  and  in  accordance  with  the  discipline 
of  the  Church.  He  asked,  however,  that  these  Acts 
might  be  publicly  read  through  in  their  presence,  so 
that  in  accordance  with  the  order  of  Pope  Celestine 
{aKo\ov6r)aavT£9  tu>  tvitw)  they  might  confirm  the 
decisions  of  the  Synod.^  Arcadius  seconded  Philip's 
request,  using  the  same  expression  as  to  the  authority 
on  which  he  acted.  The  Bishop  of  Ephesus  agreed,  and 
the  transactions  were  now  publicly  read  through  w^ord 
for  word.  But  the  Synod  added  a  summary  of  the 
reasons  for  their  method  of  action.^  They  said  that, 
since  Nestorius  would  not  obey  their  citation,  they  were 
compelled  to  proceed  {ava'yKaiws  i^copr/a-a/jisv)  to  the 
examination  of  the  things  impiously  said  by  him,  and 
that  they  had  detected  him  both  from  his  letters  and 
his  commentaries,  and  also — and  this  was  a  condition 
on  which  Celestine  had  made  the  execution  of  his 
sentence  depend,  when  writing  to  Cyril,  a  letter  which 
Cyril  had  by  this  time  at  any  rate  in  his  hands  ^ — they 
had  convicted  him  from  the  things  said  by  him  in  the 
city  of  Ephesus  quite  lately,  which  had  been  properly 
substantiated  by  witnesses,^  Having  done  this,  they 
had  proceeded  to  pass  the  sad  sentence  of  condemnation 

'  Celestine's  order  (Mansi,  iv.  556)  was  that  at  the  Council  they  were 
to  act  as  judges,  in  regard  to  the  bishops'  decisions,  or  opinions  {de 
eorum  sententiis  judicare  debeatis) ;  it  is  obvious,  therefore,  that  in 
seeing  how  things  had  been  transacted  they  were  also  to  act  as 
judges. 

2  Mansi,  iv.  1293.  ^  Mansi,  iv.  1292. 

*  Of  these  John  of  Antioch  could  have  no  proper  knowledge ;  for  he 
had  examined  no  witnesses. 


CONFIEMING  THE   BRETHREN  77 

upon  him,  '  being  compelled  thereto  {avayKams  klvt)- 
Osvrss)  both  by  the  canons  and  by  the  letter  of  Celestine.' 
This  sentence  they  declared  to  be  the  sentence  of  our 
Lord  Jesus  Christ  by  means  of  this  present  Synod. 

The  stages,  then,  through  which  matters  had  passed 
were :  (i)  the  reference  of  the  whole  matter  by  Cyril  to 
the  Apostolic  See ;  (ii)  the  condemnation  of  Nestorius  by 
the  Pope  in  the  Eoman  Synod — an  ex-cathedra  dog- 
matic definition  ^  to  the  effect  that  the  union  between  the 
human  and  divine  Natures  in  our  Lord  is  hypostatic — a 
union  of  nature  with  nature  in  one  Person,  not  of  two 
persons,  and  that  this  hypostatic  union  is  symbolised 
by  the  term  '  Mother  of  God,'  which  therefore  must  be 
accepted  by  every  member  of  the  Catholic  Church.  On 
this  ground  Nestorius  was  to  be  excommunicated,  unless 
he  repented.  This  was  the  opos^  or  dogmatic  decree,  of 
the  Holy  See.^  Then  (iii)  a  place  of  repentance  was 
given  to  Nestorius,  and  the  execution  of  the  sentence 
passed  into  the  hands  of  the  Council,  which  was  to  make 
sure  as  to  his  persistence  in  his  error,  in  which  case,  as 
the  Pope  said,  he  would  reap  the  fruit  of  his  own  acts, 
the  Papal  '  decrees  remaining  in  force,'  i.e.  by  reason  of 
his  own  obstinacy.^  At  length  (iv)  the  Council  assem- 
bled, cited  Nestorius,  proceeded,  on  his  refusal,  to  read 
the  documents,  such  as  his  letters,  with  a  view  to  giving 
a  conciliar  adhesion  to  the  Papal  sentence ;  and  (v) ,  having 
done  this  in  the  course  of  an  afternoon  and  part  of  an 


^  Cf.  Bottalla,  S.  J.  {The  Infallibility  of  the  Pope,  [Burns  and  Gates] ) 
who  calls  it  '  an  infallible  dogmatic  definition,'  p.  208. 

2  eo-Ti  Sf  opos  is  the  heading  of  the  Pope's  sentence,  Mansi,  iv.  1047. 
For  some  remarks  on  Dr.  Bright's  representation  of  this  iratter,  see 
infra,  p.  110. 

""  Mansi,  iv.  1292. 


78        THE  COUNCIL  OF  EPHESUS 

evening,  the  Synod  passed  its  sentence  in  avowed 
obedience  to  the  canons  and  the  Papal  letter.  Shortly 
afterwards  (vi)  the  Papal  legates  appear  on  the  scene 
with  instructions  to  place  themselves  in  the  hands  of 
Cyril,  to  maintain  the  authority  of  the  Holy  See,  and  to 
act  as  judges  of  the  bishops'  judgments.^  They  proceed 
to  inquire,  in  accordance  with  express  orders,  as  to  the 
precise  way  in  which  the  business  of  the  Synod  had 
been  conducted.  The  Synod  distinctly  and  emphatically 
claims  to  have  '  executed  the  sentence  '  of  Pope  Celestine.^ 
But  the  legates  require  that  the  report  of  the  Acts 
should  be  submitted  to  their  inspection,  that  in  accord- 
ance with  the  order  given  by  the  Holy  Father  they  may 
confirm  them.  The  Synod  willingly  acquiesces.  And 
the  legates  proceed  to  approve  of  all  that  had  been  done, 
and  to  give  their  assent  in  writing.  The  whole  scene  is 
one  of  emphatic  deference  to  the  representatives  of  the 
Apostolic  See.  And  (vii)  this  deference  was  paid  to  it, 
not  as  the  see  of  the  older  Imperial  capital,  nor  of  the 
Apostolic  See  of  the  West,  but  as  simply  '  the  Apostolic 
See.'  This  was  the  term  perpetually  applied  to  it — not, 
as  has  been  suggested^  (with  scant  deference  to  the 
historical  situation),  because  they  'would  not  care  to 
magnify  Antioch  by  emphasising  its  Apostolic  character, 
and  Jerusalem  was  still  subordinate  to  Caesarea,'  for  this 
would  not  account  for  Alexandria's  titla  to  '  Apostolic  ' 
being  also  subordinated,  nor  could  it  in  any  way  account 
for  the  application  of  the  word  '  Apostolic  '  in  a  unique 
sense  ('  the  Apostolic  See ')  by  Eastern  bishops  to  the 
See  of  Eome,  even  under  the  circumstances  of  Antioch's 
opposition  to  the  Synod.  No  ;  Philip  gave  the  reason 
of  its  Apostolicity,  not  as  his  own  opinion,  but  as  their 

»  Mansi,  iv.  556.  ^  Ihicl.  1287.        ^  Blight's  Romayi  See,  p.  160. 


CONFIRMING   THE   BRETHREN  79 

belief  (supra,  p.  71).  In  the  way  of  deference  the  Papal 
letter  was  read  in  the  original  language  as  well  as  in  a 
translation  ;  the  Acts  of  the  Synod  were  submitted  to 
the  Papal  legates  ;  they  were  solemnly  read  out  from  end 
to  end  in  their  presence  after  they  had  themselves  read 
them  through ,  and  the  moving  cause  of  the  decision 
arrived  at  was  then  declared  by  the  Synod  to  be  '  the 
canons  and  the  Papal  letter '  {dvayKaLco9  klvt^Osvtss, 
Lat.  coacti). 

Let  us  pause  for  a  moment  to  consider  the  situation 
outside  of  Ephesus.  The  Emperor  was  against  Cyril 
and  in  favour  of  Nestorius ;  the  Bishop  thus  deposed 
was  the  Bishop  of  the  Imperial  city.  The  great 
central  see  of  the  East,  that  of  Antioch,  had  professed 
to  excommunicate  Cyril  and  Memnon,  the  Bishop  of 
Ephesus,  for  the  irregular  way  in  which  they  had  acted. 
What  was  Eome,  that,  in  the  face  of  all  this,  its  Bishop 
should  occupy  the  transcendent  position  that  it  did  in 
the  person  of  the  Papal  Legates  ? 

Eome  had  not  been  for  the  past  century  and  more 
the  habitual  residence  of  her  Emperor.  At  this  moment 
Theodosius  in  the  East,  by  whose  order  the  Council  had 
been  summoned  to  Ephesus,  was  the  overlord  of  Eome, 
and  the  child  whom  eight  years  before  he  had  placed  on 
the  throne  in  the  West  was  with  his  mother  at  Eavenna, 
for  safety's  sake.  Byzantium  was  as  politically  powerful 
as  Eome  was  politically  weak.^  There  was  nothing  in  the 
city  of  Eome  but  the  prestige  of  the  past ;  while  Con- 
stantinople was  ablaze  with  the  glamour  of  an  Imperial 
Court.  The  bishops  of  the  East  were  mostly  Court- 
bishops,  perpetually  truckling  to  the  Imperial  favour. 
Fifty  years  ago  they  had  endeavoured  to  give  the  Byzan- 

'  Gregorovius,  Hist,  of  Ro7ne,  pp.  168, 179  (Tr.)    Dill,  Roman  Society, 
p.  128  (1898). 


80  THE  COUNCIL  OF   EPHESUS 

tine  capital  a  lift  above  Alexandria  and  Antioch.  That 
Council  had  not  indeed  taken  its  place  among  those 
called  CEcumenical ;  the  bishops  at  Ephesus  considered 
themselves  to  be  sitting  only  in  the  second  Ecumenical 
Synod.  Still,  the  Imperial  city  had  advanced  step  by 
step.  What  was  it  that  under  such  adverse  circum- 
stances secured  the  deference  now  paid  by  Eastern 
bishops  to  the  Bishop  of  desolate  Eome,  sinking  as  she 
was  civilly  to  comparative  insignificance  in  the  life  of 
the  Empire  ?  Philip,  the  Papal  legate,  had  already  ex- 
plained the  secret ;  he  had  struck  a  note  which  awakened 
no  single  dissonant  utterance  in  that  second  session  of 
the  Synod.  He  spoke,  not  of  '  older  Rome,'  but  of  '  the 
Apostolic  See.'  He  had  congratulated  them  on  their 
having  'joined  themselves  as  holy  members  to  their  holy 
head  '  by  their  exclamations  uttered  immediately  upon 
the  Papal  letter  being  solemnly  read  ;  and  he  had  ex- 
plained this  expression  of  his  by  appealing  to  their 
universal  acceptance  ^  of  the  truth  that  Peter  was  '  the 
head  of  the  whole  faith,  and  of  the  Apostles  '  ;  hence 
Celestine,  the  present  Bishop  of  Eome,  was  their  '  holy 
head  ' — an  exposition  which  was  followed  by  a  sym- 
pathetic speech  from  Theodotus  of  Ancyra. 

But  now  in  this  third  session,  after  the  form  of  pro- 
cedure had  been  dictated  by  the  legates,  and  a  consider- 
able time  had  been  spent  in  publicly  reading,  for  form's 
sake,  the  whole  Acts  of  the  first  session  ;  now  that  the 
Synod  had  avowed  its  indebtedness  to  the  Papal  judg- 
ment, '  compelled  by  the  canons  and  by  the  letter  '  con- 
taining that  sentence,  the  legate  Philip  rose  and 
delivered  a  speech  in  which  he  at  least  professed  to 
voice  again  the  belief  of  every  member  of  that  Synod  as 

•   Mansi,  iv.  1289.  ^  oh  yap  ayvoel  v/jluv  v  tiJKapi6j'ns. 


CONFIRMING   THE   BRETHREN  81 

to  the  reason  why  they  had  thus  deferred  to  the  judg- 
ment of  the  Holy  See.  The  reason  was  to  be  found  in 
the  teaching  of  Holy  Scripture  and  the  constant  tradi- 
tion of  Holy  Church  as  to  the  See  of  Peter.     He  said  : 

*  It  is  doubtful  to  none,  yea  and  has  been  known  to 
all  ages,  that  the  holy  and  most  blessed  Peter,  the  prince 
and  head  of  the  Apostles,  and  the  pillar  of  the  faith  and 
the  foundation  of  the  Catholic  Church,  received  the  keys 
of  the  Kingdom  from  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  the  Saviour 
and  Kedeemer  of  the  human  race,  and  that  the  power  of 
loosing  and  binding  was  given  to  him :  who  up  to  this 
time,  and  always,  lives  and  exercises  judgment  in  his 
successors.  Therefore  our  holy  and  most  blessed  father 
Bishop  Celestine,  being  his  successor  and  holding  his 
place,  has  sent  us  to  this  holy  Synod  to  supply  his 
presence.'  He  then  speaks  of  the  Emperor  having  sum- 
moned the  Synod  for  the  preservation  of  the  faith,  and 
continues :  *  Therefore  Nestorius,  the  author  of  this 
perverse  novelty  [Gk.  lit.  new  perversity]  and  the  head 
of  the  evils,  having  been  summoned,  as  we  have  learned 
from  the  Acts  of  the  Synod,  and  having  been  warned, 
according  to  the  decrees  {tvttovs)  of  the  fathers,  and  the 
disciplinary  provisions  \lit.  discipline,  or  science]  of  the 
canons,  contemptuously  refused  to  come  to  judgment,  when 
he  ought  of  his  own  accord  to  have  offered  himself,  that 
he  might  have  been  healed  by  the  spiritual  remedy  [thus 
provided]  ;  but  having  a  seared  conscience,  although  he 
was  legitimately  and,  as  I  have  said,  in  accordance  with 
the  canons,  admonished,  he  refused  to  come  to  this  holy 
Synod,  and  allowed,  not  only  the  interval  allowed  by  the 
Apostolic  see,  but  a  much  longer  time  to  pass  by.  There- 
fore,'— notice  how  exactly  the  legate  has  repeated  the 
reasons  given  by  the  Synod  itself  for  their  condemnation 

G 


82         THE  COUNCIL  OF  EPHESUS 

of  Nestorius,  viz.  the  requirements  of  the  canons  and  of 
the  letter  of  Pope  Celestine — '  that  which  has  been  pro- 
nounced ^  against  him  who  with  hostile  spirit  and  impious 
mouth  has  uttered  blasphemy  against  our  Lord  Jesus 
Christ,  stands  firm,  according  to  the  decree  {tvttov)  of  all 
the  Churches,  since  in  this  Council  of  the  hierarchy  are 
gathered  together  the  priests  both  from  the  Eastern  and 
the  Western  Churches,  either  in  person  or  by  legates. 
Therefore  following  the  decrees  {tvitols)  of  the  Fathers, 
this  present  holy  Synod  has  passed  a  definite  sentence 
{copLCTs  .  .  .  'i7i]oasvs'yicaaa  airocpaaiv)  against  the  rash 
blasphemer.  Wherefore  let  Nestorius  know  that  he  is 
excluded  from  the  communion  of  the  Catholic  Church.' 
He  thus  ratified  the  sentence  of  the  Synod  in  the  name 
of  the  successor  of  the  Apostle  Peter. 

The  two  other  legates  made  similar  formal  utterances 
as  to  the  validity  of  the  Synodical  condemnation  of 
Nestorius.  Arcadius  is  called  '  the  legate  of  the  Apostolic 
See,'  and  Projectus  *  the  legate  of  the  Church  of  the 
Komans.'  As  such  they  were,  as  has  been  already 
remarked,  taken  to  represent  the  West  sufficiently — 
although  they  were  not  deputies  selected  by  the  West, 
but  representatives  deputed  by  the  Holy  See. 

Suc];i,  then — to  return  to  the  speech  of  the  legate 
Philip — was  the  plain  teaching  concerning  Papal  Su- 
premacy, as  grounded  on  the  words  of  our  Lord  to 
Peter,  who  is  called  '  the  foundation  of  the  Catholic 
Church.'  And  this  belief  was  given  as  that  of  every 
bishop  there,  and  indeed  of  the  whole  Catholic  Church 
— '  it  is  doubtful  to  none ' — and  as  that  of  all  past  ages 
— *  it  has  been  known  to  all  ages.'  This  statement  of 
Papal  Supremacy  did  not  occur  as  an  obiter  dictum ; 


CONFIRMING   THE   BRETHREN  83 

it  was  made  the  pivot  upon  which  the  whole  action  of 
the  legates  hinged.  It  was  a  case  in  which,  if  ever  there 
was  one,  silence  on  the  part  of  the  bishops  would  in- 
volve acquiescence.  At  a  time  when  the  city  of  Eome 
was  politically  in  the  dust,  when  no  one  would  have 
called  her,  from  a  natural  point  of  view,  the  Eternal 
City— for  no  one,  except  those  who  believed  in  her  as  the 
See  of  Peter,  could  have  dreamt  of  the  vitality  she  was 
to  exhibit,  owing  simply  to  the  prerogatives  of  the 
Prince  of  the  Apostles,  whose  seat  and  centre  was  in 
that  city — at  that  era  of  apparent  decadence,  the  legate 
of  the  Bishop  of  Eome  stood  in  the  midst  of  this  great 
Eastern  assembly  and  spoke  of  the  position  of  '  the 
Apostolic  See '  in  the  Kingdom  of  God,  as  inheriting  the 
prerogatives  of  '  the  foundation  of  the  Catholic  Church,' 
the  Prince  and  head  of  the  Apostles. 

There  was  no  protest  made.  None  said  that  this 
was  not  his  faith,  not  even  the  ambitious  Juvenal  of 
Jerusalem,  equal,  at  any  time,  to  the  task,  if  he  had 
really  held  a  different  faith.  Had  the  teaching  of  Philip 
on  the  Papal  Supremacy  been  open  to  question,  had  any- 
one, contrary  to  what  Philip  said,  doubted  it,  we  could 
hardly  have  failed  to  catch  some  murmur  of  dissent. 

But  Philip's  simple  statement  of  the  belief  of  all  the 
bishops  there  present  was  met  with  something  even 
more  significant  than  silence.  He  had  made  his  deposi- 
tion, as  the  saying  was,  and  it  had  hinged  on  the  Divine 
institution  of  the  supreme  position  of  Peter's  See  in  the 
Catholic  Church.     What  of  such  a  deposition  ? 

Cyril  spoke  for  the  Synod.  He  said  :  '  The  deposi- 
tions made  by  the  most  holy  and  God-fearing  bishops 
Arcadius  and  Projectus,  and  moreover  hij  the  presbyter 
Philip^  have  been  made  plain  to  the  Synod ;  for  they 


84         THE  COUNCIL  OF  EPHESUS 

have  deposed,  filling  the  place  of  the  Apostolic  See  and 
of  the  bishops  of  the  whole  Western  Synod.  So  that 
they  have  executed  the  things  already  decided  by  the 
most  holy  and  God-beloved  Bishop  Celestine  and  they 
have  given  their  assent  '—obviously  that  of  a  superior — 
'  to  the  decree  pronounced  against  the  heretic  Nestorius 
by  the  holy  Synod  assembled  here  in  Ephesus. 
Wherefore  let  the  transactions  of  yesterday  and  to-day  be 
joined  on  to  the  previous  ''  Acts  "  ;  so  let  the  records  be 
brought,  that  they  may  manifest  in  the  usual  way  by 
their  own  signature  their  canonical  agreement  with  all 
of  us.' 

Now  no  honest  man  could  have  used  the  expression 
which  Cyril  here  used  of  the  Holy  See,  if  he  did  not 
believe  the  doctrine  just  delivered  by  Philip  concerning 
that  see  and  asserted  to  be  the  accepted  teaching  of  all 
who  sat  there.  Cyril  spoke  of  the  legates  as  filling  the 
place  of  '  the  Apostolic  See,'  as  well  as,  of  course,  of  the 
bishops  of  the  West.  Philip  had  explained  in  what 
sense  the  See  of  Kome  was  '  the  Apostolic  See ' ;  and 
Cyril  immediately  used  the  expression  without  any 
counter-explanation.  We  know,  too,  what  Cyril  thought 
of  it.  It  seems  almost  incredible  that  anyone  should 
endeavour  to  establish  a  difference  of  opinion  between 
Philip  and  Cyril  by  drawing  attention  to  the  fact  that 
Cyril  '  takes  care  to  describe  the  legates  as  representing, 
not  only  ''  the  Apostolical  See  "  but  "  all  the  holy  Synod 
of  the  West."  ' '  Why,  Philip  had  done  the  same.  Nor  is 
it  less  surprising  that  the  same  writer  should  consider 
that  he  makes  a  point  in  saying  that  Cyril  also  dis- 
tinguishes '  their  {i.e.  the  legates')  action,  as  Celestine's 
real  "  agents,"  from  the  sentence  already  pronounced  by 

'  Bright's  Roman  See,  p.  164. 


CONFIKMING  THE  BRETHREN  85 

the  Synod  to  which  he  requests  their  *'  assent "  in 
writing.'  No  one,  surely,  ever  dreamt  of  supposing  that 
the  Synod  was  the  'agent'  of  Celestine  in  the  sense 
that  the  legates  were.  The  action  of  the  legates  was 
that  of  men,  strictly  representing  the  Holy  See,  sent  to 
pass  judgment  on  the  action  of  the  Synod.  The  action 
of  the  Synod  was  that  of  bishops,  who  had  their  own 
duty  of  judgment,  though  that  right  would  be  used 
amiss  if  it  ended  in  differing  from  the  Papal  sentence. 

One  of  the  legates  who  represented  the  Synod  of  the 
West,  but  who  is  immediately  spoken  of  as  '  the  legate 
of  the  Church  of  the  Eomans,'  replied  that,  '  in  view  of 
what  had  been  done  in  this  holy  Synod,  they  cannot  but 
confirm  their  teaching  with  their  own  signatures.'  And 
the  Synod  at  once  said — and  the  words  are  conclusive  as 
to  their  view  of  all  that  had  happened — *  Since  the  most 
pious  and  God-fearing  bishops  and  legates,  Arcadius  and 
Projectus,  and  Philip,  presbyter  and  legate  of  the  Apo- 
stolic See,  have  spoken  suitably,^  it  follows  that  they 

•  Gk.  aKo\ovdws.  Dr.  Bright  thinks  that  this  means  '  in  accordance 
with  the  Synod.'  If  so,  it  must  be  remembered  that  the  Synod  professed 
to  have  executed  the  sentence  of  Celestine  (cf .  Firmus's  speech,  supra, 
p.  69)  ;  and  that  the  legates  were  consequently  in  accord  with  it.  But, 
as  a  matter  of  fact,  the  word  aKoAovdws  is  generally  used  in  the  Acts  of 
the  Council  of  Ephesus  and  Chalcedou  as  a  synonym  for  '  canonically  or 
in  ecclesiastical  order.'  The  schismatic  Synod  under  John  of  Antioch 
had  laid  the  greatest  stress  on  the  breach  of  canonical  order  of  which 
the  Synod  under  Cyril  was  supposed  to  have  been  guilty,  using  this 
same  word  again  and  again  in  its  substantive  form  [aKoXovdia). 
Nestorius  had  done  the  same  (Mansi,  iv.  1233).  So  that  here  the  Synod 
says  that  the  legates  had  spoken  in  agreement  with  the  canons, 
especially  Philip.  The  Synod  used  the  same  word  in  the  fifth  Act 
(Mansi,  iv.  1321) :  'AkoXovOws  v  vir6fivri<ns  -yiyivriTai,  where  the  Latin  is 
'  Qualem  oportebaV  uKoKovdcas  koI  kolvovikoos  is  a  regular  expression  for 
a  thing  done  in  canonical  order,  in  Byzantine  Greek.  The  burden  of 
Cyril's     accusation    against    John    of    Antioch    and    his     schismatic 


86         THE  COUNCIL  OF  EPHESUS 

should  make  good  their  promise  and  by  their  signature 
confirm  what  has  been  done.'  In  other  words,  the  whole 
Synod  accepted  the  situation  as  described  by  the  legate 
Philip.  Thus  the  assent  required  by  the  law  of  the 
Church  was  secured.  The  Greek  historian  had  said  that 
it  was  not  lawful  to  make  regulations  or  canons  contrary 
to  the  judgment  of  the  Bishop  of  Eome  ;  ^  nor  would 
the  proceedings,  therefore,  of  an  QEcumenical  Synod 
be  valid  without  the  assent  of  the  Apostolic  See. 
That  assent  had  now  been  given,  so  far  as  it  could  be 
given  by  legates,  and  it  had  been  given  in  agreement 
with  the  canons,  as  they  themselves  had  stated. 

Each  of  the  legates  signed,  Philip  first,  as  '  presbyter 
and  legate  of  the  Apostolic  See  ' :  Arcadius  and  Projectus 
as  '  Bishop  and  legate  of  the  Apostolic  See.'  Neither  of 
them  signed  as  representing,  in  a  direct  way,  the  Synod 
of  the  West ;  but  as  Philip  said  —and  Cyril  echoed  his 
statement — the  West  was  present  in  them,  that  is  to  say, 
by  implication.  They  acted  in  obedience  to  the  Papal 
injunction  ;  by  that  authority,  which  they  placed  in  the 
front  in  their  depositions,  they  were  justified  in  agreeing 
with  the  Synod,  in  following  suit  in  their  signatures,  in 
confirming  what  the  Synod  had  done. 

action  was  ixP^^  '''^^^  K<xv6<nv  i^aKoXovOrjcrai,  and  that  he  insulted  ira<rav 
aKoXovQlav  ^KKK-qaiaaTiK-hv,  all  ecclesiastical  order  (M.  iv.  1308)  ;  whereas 
John  of  Antioch  claims  that  his  Synod  will  see  that  things  are  decided 
aKoXovdcos  (iv.  1264).  aKSxovdos  came  to  mean  'canonical,'  because  the 
canons  were  arranged  in  a  consecutive  series.  Cf.  Lupus,  Syiwd.  Decret. 
1.  903. 

'  Socrates  (a  lawyer  of  Constantinople  in  the  middle  of  the  5th  cen- 
tury), H.  E.  ii.  8. 


CONFIRMING  THE  BRETHREN  87 


Note  on  Dr.  Bright  v.  Mansi. 

Dr.  Bright,  in  the  CJmrch  Quarterly  Review  (Jan.  1895, 
p.  290),  and  in  his  book  on  The  Boman  See,  dx,  p.  165,  has 
committed  himself  on  this  incident,  first  to  a  patent  mis- 
translation and  then  to  an  equivocal  withdrawal  or  a 
reassertion  of  his  mistake.  I  do  not  know  which  is  intended. 
In  the  Church  Quarterly  Beview  he  translated  the  Synod's 
words  calling  upon  the  legates  to  confirm  its  Acts,  thus  : 
'  Since  they  have  spoken  aKoXovOois,  it  follows  that  they 
should  make  good  their  own  promise  and  affirm  lohat  has 
been  done  by  their  signatures.'  Now  the  legate  Arcadius  had 
said  in  the  preceding  sentence  that  '  in  view  of  what  had  been 
done ' — considering,  that  is,  that  all  had  been  done  in 
canonical  order — they  felt  obliged  to  '  confirm  their  teaching 
with  their  signatures.'  There  can  be  no  question  what 
Arcadius  meant  by  '  confirming.'  Dr.  Bright,  however, 
anxious  to  get  out  of  the  awkward  w^itness  which  would  be 
rendered  to  Papal  Supremacy  if  the  Synod  consented  to  have  its 
transactions  reviewed  and  confirmed  by  Papal  legates,  actually 
translated  [Church  Quarterly  Bevieio)  ijepaioio-ai  *  affirm,'  and 
made  the  Synod  ask  the  legates  to  '  afiirm  what  has  been  done ' 
by  it.  What  could  be  meant  by  affirming  what  had  been 
done,  when  all  that  had  been  done  had  been  written  down  and 
read  out,  unless  in  the  sense  of  *  confirming '  ?  But,  if  in 
that  sense,  why  not  use  the  w^ord  '  confirm  '  ?  This  was 
pointed  out  by  me  in  an  article  in  the  Dublin  Bevieio  to 
which  Dr.  Bright  alludes  elsewhere,  showing  that  he  had 
read  it,  and  in  his  book  on  the  Boman  See  (p.  165),  he 
alters  his  translation  thus  far,  '  it  follows  that  they  should 
make  good  their  own  promise,  and  affirm  [or  "  confirm  "] 
what  has  been  done.'  It  is  surprising  that  one  w^ho  deals  with 
such  accusations  about  scholarship  and  logic  as  Dr.  Bright 
does,  should  have  had  recourse  to  such  a  singular  procedure 
as  this.  When  he  says  on  the  next  page  that  *  the  sense  of 
/3€/3atdco  is   somewhat   elastic;    its  sense  in  any  particular 


88         THE  COUNCIL  OF  EPHESUS 

passage  must  be  settled  by  the  context ;  and  we  learn  by 
Cyril's  phrase  "  canonical  assent "  in  what  sense  the  legates 
were  expected  to  '*  confirm  "  the  Council's  proceedings,'  Dr. 
Bright  needs  to  be  reminded  that  a  single  expression  does 
not  make  a  context,  and  this  one  word  *  canonical '  itself 
receives  ample  explanation  from  the  whole  context.  And 
certainly  of  all  men,  Cyril  is  the  last  whose  use  of  *  canonical ' 
could  be  supposed  to  exclude  what  the  whole  context 
establishes,  viz.  the  right  to  judge  of  the  action  of  bishops, 
which  resides  in  the  Apostolic  See.  The  legates  had 
refused  to  give  their  assent  to  the  Acts  of  the  Synod  until 
they  were  certified  that  all  had  been  done  in  strict  accord- 
ance with  the  canons.  Their  assent  would  not  be  itself 
canonical,  unless  this  condition  were  fulfilled. 

But  since  the  name  of  Mansi  occurs  so  often  in  these 
pages,  it  may  be  well  to  give  the  estimate  which  that  most 
learned  and  illustrious  writer  formed  of  the  first  three 
sessions  of  the  Council.  It  occurs  in  his  *  Animadversions  '  on 
NataUs  Alexander's  History  (iJ.  E.  ix.  473  [1787]).  Mansi 
quotes  a  remark  of  Baluze,  who,  as  he  says,  though  a  disciple 
of  De  Marca,  yet  admitted  that  the  discovery  of  Celestine's 
Conmionitorium  to  the  legates  (cf.  supra,  p.  65)  was  fatal 
to  his  master's  theory,  so  far  as  that  theory  was  founded  on 
the  Acts  of  the  Council  of  Ephesus.  Baluze  says  that  if 
Baronius  had  seen  this  Commonitorium  he  would  have  been 
able  to  say  still  more  confidently  that  the  legates  were  sent, 
not  that  the  case  of  Nestorius  should  be  subjected  to  a  fresh 
examination,  but  to  see  that  the  sentence  already  passed  was 
executed.  Mansi  quotes  the  words  from  the  sentence  of  the 
Council  *  compelled  by  the  canons  and  letter  of  Celestine  '  as 
showing  the  obedience  paid  by  the  bishops  to  Celestine  ; 
and  he  deduces  the  same  from  the  words  of  the  Synod  to  the 
Emperor,  viz.  *  praising  Celestine  &c.'  He  quotes  the  words 
of  Firmus  as  proving  the  same.  He  then  deals  with  the  fact 
that  the  Council  examined  the  teaching  of  Nestorius,  and 
remarks   that  'not  merely  the  definitions  of  the   Pontiffs, 


CONFIRMING  THE  BRETHEEN  89 

but  those  also  of  OEcumenical  Councils  were  discussed  in 
particular  Synods,  not  from  any  doubt  as  to  their  truth,  but 
because  they  believed  that  they  could  pass  a  fresh  judgment 
on  them.  The  Pontiffs  themselves,  v^ho  believed  that  it  was 
not  lawful  to  refuse  assent  to  their  own  definitions,  willed 
that  Councils  should  be  called  to  prove  what  they  had 
defined.'  He  then  lays  stress  on  the  words  of  the  sentence 
at  Ephesus,  *  compelled  by  the  canons  and  by  the  letter  of 
Celestine,'  adding  :  *  No  one  but  a  superior  can  compel.'  He 
thinks  that  Bossuet  has  given  away  his  case  by  appealing  to 
the  Council  of  Ephesus.  We  might  say  the  same  with  ten- 
fold force  of  Dr.  Bright  and  our  other  Anglican  friends.  As 
for  the  Council's  issuing  a  sentence  in  its  own  name,  Mansi 
says  that  a  lower  court  can  always  do  this  when  ordered  by 
a  higher  court.  He  then  quotes  Pope  Nicolas  I.,  who  ad- 
duces the  same  words  from  the  sentence  passed  by  the 
Council :  *  necessarily  compelled '  {necessario  coacti  is  the 
Pope's  translation).  He  then  shows  that  the  explanation 
of  a  *  canonical '  sentence,  adopted  by  Dr.  Bright,  will  not 
hold.  And  Bossuet's  notion  (also  adopted  by  that  writer), 
viz.  that  the  legates  only  manifested  their  assent  to  the 
Synod's  transactions,  is,  says  Mansi,  quite  untenable  when 
we  consider  *  that  the  legates  said  that  the  Acts  were  then  to 
be  confirmed  by  them  after  they  had  been  submitted  to 
their  investigation  for  the  especial  purpose  that  they  might 
see  if  they  agreed  with  the  judgment  passed  by  Celestine.' 
Mansi  then  shows  that  Philip,  in  saying  that  Peter,  the 
pillar  of  the  faith  and  foundation  of  the  Catholic  Church, 
lives  still  in  his  successors  and  exercises  judgment,  pre- 
dicates '  the  infallibility  of  the  Pontiffs  when  they  define 
ex  cathedra ;  for  if  they  can  err  in  defining,  who  would  dare 
to  say  that  Peter  the  pillar  of  the  faith  and  foundation  of 
the  Church  lives  in  them  and  exercises  judgment?* 
Mansi  then  shows  that  the  legates  came  to  see  that  Pope 
Celestine's  judgment  was  executed,  and  that  Cyril  said  that 
the  legates  had  done  that  for  which  they  were  sent. 


CHAPTEE   VIII 

THE    EMPEROR    AND    THE    MONK 

We  must  now  return  to  Constantinople  and  its  young 
Emperor.  After  the  Council's  first  session  at  Ephesus, 
the  bishops  sent  the  Emperor  a  report  of  the  proceedings, 
in  which  they  explained  why  they  met  together  without  the 
Bishop  of  Antioch,  and  then,  taking  up  the  two  points  of 
their  sentence  in  which  they  had  alleged  the  canons  and 
the  letter  of  Pope  Celestine  as  the  moving  cause  of  their 
decision,  they  showed  how  both  in  proceeding  to  their 
work  without  Nestorius  and  in  the  conduct  of  their  task 
they  had  acted  in  accordance  with  the  canons,  and  how 
they  had  '  praised  ' — that  is  (as  their  sentence  explained), 
deferred  to  and  acted  in  unison  with — '  Celestine  the 
most  holy  and  God-beloved  Bishop  of  Piome,  who  con- 
demned the  heretical  dogmatic  teaching  of  Nestorius  before 
we  did,  for  the  safety  of  the  Churches,  and  of  the  holy 
and  saving  faith  delivered  to  us  by  the  holy  Apostles  and 
Evangelists  and  by  the  holy  Fathers  ;  which  he  [Nestorius] 
endeavoured  to  overthrow  by  his  depraved  teaching, 
which  he  disseminated  far  and  wide  after  his  condemna- 
tion.' ^     They   therefore   begged   the   Emperor   to  take 

•  Mansi,  iv.  1240.  The  Greek  text  here  presents  a  difficulty  in  the 
last  sentence.  It  runs,  iroXh  rh  ttAtjOos  o  KaTayvo^a-deh  e'le'xee.  Judging 
from  the  Latin  edition  in  use  before  the  sixth  century  (Mansi,  v.  562), 
the  meaning  is  that  a  great  quantity  of  heretical  talk  was  poured  forth 


EMPEROR   AND  MONK  91 

measures  for  removing  this  teaching  from  their  midst, 
and  to  have  Nestorius's  writings  committed  to  the  flames. 
It  is  to  be  noticed  that  the  bishops  in  this  letter 
speak  of  the  part  played  by  Pope  Celestine  as  being  that 
of  safeguarding  the  '  Churches  '  and  the  Apostolic  faith, 
and  of  Nestorius's  condemnation  as  having  dated  from 
the  decision  of  Celestine.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  they  had 
especially  established  the  fact  of  his  continued  false 
teaching,  as  indeed  they  were  in  natural  justice  bound 
to  do.  But  the  gist  of  this  paragraph  in  their  syn- 
odical  letter  is  this  :  Celestine  condemned  Nestorius  ;  we 
followed  suit,  Nestorius  having  persisted  in  his  depraved 
doctrine,   even   after   his    condemnation    by   Celestine, 

But  after  the  third  session,  when  the  Papal  legates 
had  confirmed  the  synodical  condemnation  of  Nestorius, 
the  bishops  wrote  a  second  report,  in  which  they  began 
with  speaking  of  his  condemnation  by  the  Eoman  Synod, 
which  they  considered  necessarily  carried  with  it  the 
entire  West.  They  thus,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  brought 
out  the  special  feature  of  a  conciliar  judgment  as  given 
above  in  our  resume  of  Catholic  teaching  on  the  subject 
of  (Ecumenical  Councils  (p.  41).  Where  a  Papal  de- 
cision has  gone  before,  a  conciliar  judgment  exhibits  in 
the  most  striking  way  possible  the  unanimity  of  the 
entire  Church  in  that  decision.  This  was  the  burden  of 
the  bishops'  letter  to  the  Emperor  now.  They  mention 
the  letter  of  Celestine  to  themselves  as  having  super- 
vened  on   the   decision    given   by   the   Eoman    Synod 

by  Nestorius.  But  the  important  point  is  that,  whatever  this  means 
exactly,  the  statement  is  clear  that  in  the  eyes  of  the  orthodox  bishops 
Nestorius  had  aggravated  his  crime  by  teaching  as  he  did  after  his  con- 
demnation by  Pope  Celestine. 


92  THE   COUNCIL  OF  EPIIESUS 

presided  over  by  him,  and  the  presence  of  the  legates 
from  Kome  and  their  confirmation  of  the  Acts  of  their 
first  session,  as  involving  the  acquiescence  of  the  entire 
West  in  what  they  had  done.  They  also  emphasise 
the  fact  that  Cyril  had  been  originally  entrusted  by 
Celestine  with  the  conduct  of  the  matter,  an  impor- 
tant point,  as  it  suggested  that  in  the  government  of 
the  Council  he  was  not  taking  upon  himself  to  act 
simply  as  the  bishop  of  the  rival  see  of  Alexandria. 
They  end  with  a  petition  which  assumes  that  they  now 
at  length  have  a  right  to  consider  their  action  as  final, 
and  ask  to  be  released  from  further  attendance  at 
Ephesus,  and  to  be  allowed  to  arrange  for  the  consecra- 
tion of  another  bishop  for  Constantinople.  The  letter 
was  signed  by  Cyril  and  the  rest  of  the  bishops,  but 
apparently  not  by  the  legates,  perhaps  because  it  con- 
cerned their  own  assent  to  the  transactions  of  the 
Council,  of  which  Cyril  was  president — they  themselves 
having  been  sent  to  '  judge  of  the  bishops'  sentences  or 
opinions  '  as  Celestine  had  said  in  his  Commonitorium. 

But  every  effort  had  been  made  at  Constantinople  in 
the  end  of  June  to  prevent  the  Emperor  from  receiving 
a  true  report  of  the  doings  of  the  orthodox  Synod.^ 
Candidian  had  succeeded  in  poisoning  his  Majesty's 
mind  against  Cyril,  and  leading  him  to  believe  that 
Nestor ius  had  been  uncanonically  condemned.  No  one 
disputed  the  justice  of  the  original  sentence  of  the  Pope 
on  Nestorius ;  it  was  against  the  conciliar  execution  of 
that  sentence  that  all  their  efforts  were  directed.  Still 
the  Emperor  was  destined  to  receive  some  further  informa- 
tion as  to  the  transactions  of  the  orthodox  Council.  A 
"simple  mendicant  succeeded  in  reaching  the  great  monas- 

•  Mansi,  iv.  1428. 


EMPEROR   AND   MONK  93 

terj^  in  Constantinople,  and  having  hidden  a  copy  of  a  letter 
from  Cyril  in  a  reed — probably  his  pilgrim's  staff — he 
was  able  to  throw  fresh  light  on  the  distressing  state  of 
things  in  Ephesus.  And  now  a  scene  occurred  which 
left  an  indelible  impression  on  the  people  of  Constanti- 
nople and  assisted  the  Emperor  in  forming  a  true 
judgment  of  the  case. 

There  lived  in  Constantinople  an  aged  man,  an 
Archimandrite,  and  a  patriarch  among  monks  (who 
swarmed  in  the  Imperial  city),  to  whom,  as  the  Synod 
said  in  its  letter  of  thanks,^  God  had  from  the  first 
revealed  the  real  temper  and  tone  of  Nestorius's  epi- 
scopate. He  used  to  say  to  his  monks  : '  Beware,  brethen  ; 
an  evil  beast  has  settled  in  this  city :  and  he  has  to 
injure  many  by  his  teaching.'  For  forty-eight  years 
this  venerable  ascetic  had  never  left  his  monastery  ;  but 
within  and  without  its  precincts  his  name  was  one  with 
which  to  conjure,  by  reason  of  the  sanctity  with  which 
he  was  universally  credited.  The  Emperor  had  ere  now 
visited  him  in  person,  to  induce  him  to  join  in  litanies 
and  processions  when  Constantinople  was  trembling 
with  the  shocks  of  earthquake ;  but  Dalmatius  (for  that 
was  his  name)  turned  a  deaf  ear  to  the  advances  of  his 
highest  earthly  superior  ;  nothing  could  prevail  on  him 
to  leave  his  monastic  home.  But  now  a  voice  from 
heaven  seemed  to  say  to  him  that  he  must  break  through 
his  cherished  seclusion  and  go  in  person  to  visit  the 
Emperor. 

The  scene  in  Constantinople  as  the  recluse  quitted 
his  cell  to  make  his  way  to  the  presence-chamber  of 
the  young  Emperor  Theodosius  is  described  in  a  letter 
written   to   the   Synod  of  Ephesus   by   the  bishops  in 

'  Mansi,  iv.  1260. 


94  THE   COUNCIL  OF  EPHESUS 

Constantinople^  who  clustered  there  and  became  the 
resident  Council  round  the  Archbishop.  A  great  crowd 
of  the  orthodox  accompanied  the  holy  monk  through 
the  streets,  and  as  he  passed  into  the  palace  with  some 
attendant  Archimandrites  the  crowd  remained  outside 
chanting  their  psalms  antiphonally.  And  when  the 
Saint  emerged  from  the  palace,  a  long  procession  accom- 
panied him  through  a  principal  thoroughfare  to  the  other 
end  of  the  city,  still  singing  their  psalms,  until  he  entered 
the  basilica  of  St.  Mocius,  where  he  was  to  communicate 
the  Imperial  answer.  It  had  been  favourable,  Cyril's 
proposal  that  a  deputation  from  the  Council  should  wait 
on  his  Imperial  Majesty  and  explain  their  transactions 
had  been  accepted.  The  crowd  of  orthodox  shouted 
*  Anathema  to  Nestorius  !  ' 

»  Mansi,  iv.  1428. 


CHAPTEK  IX 

JOHN    OF    ANTIOCH    CONDEMNED. 

In  the  next  (fourth)  session  pi  the  Synod  at  Ephesus 
Cyril  still  presiding  {'  managing  the  place  of  Celestine,' 
say  the  Acts)  with  the  assistance  of  the  other  legates, 
brought  forward  his  own  case  and  that  of  Memnon,  the 
bishop  of  the  diocese.  John  of  Antioch,  had,  as  we  have 
seen  allowed  himself  to  be  so  far  led  away  by  the  bad  com- 
pany in  which  he  found  himself,  that  he  had  synodically 
condemned,  excommunicated  and  deposed  both  Cyril  and 
Memnon.  Cyril  could  have  afforded  to  treat  such  mad- 
ness with  contempt,  if  he  had  not  had  to  deal  with  an 
Emperor  who  was  opposed  to  him,  and  with  all  the 
enemies  of  the  faith.  He  might  have  fallen  back  simply 
and  solely  on  his  union  with  the  successor  of  St.  Peter 
and  the  whole  West ;  but  the  matter  was  one  which  had 
arisen  since  his  actual  communication  with  Celestine. 
Accounts  were  already  being  sent  to  the  Emperor  by 
Candidian  ;  and  Nestorius  and  the  Bishop  of  Antioch  both 
leant  on  the  Imperial  arm.  At  any  moment  he  might 
find  himself  in  prison,  as  indeed  eventually  happened. 
Every  moment,  therefore,  was  of  importance. 

Accordingly  the  Synod  was  again  convened  and  Cyril 
asked  the  bishops  for  their  vote  on  John  of  Antioch 's 
conduct  towards  himself  and  Memnon.  After  explaining 
how  the  proceedings  of  the  Council  had  been  conducted 


96         THE  COUNCIL  OF  EPHESUS 

in  an  orderly  and  judicial  manner,  and  how  John  of 
Antioch  had  delayed  when  he  might  have  come,  and  had 
been  joined  by  certain  disorderly  persons,  some  without 
sees,  some  under  accusations,  he  pointed  out  that  the  so- 
called  deposition  which  John  and  some  thirty  bishops 
had  pretended  to  pass  on  himself  and  Memnon  was 
absurd,  considering  the  number  and  character  of  the 
real  Synod.  '  And  indeed,'  he  added,  '  he  has  no  power 
from  ecclesiastical  laws  or  from  an  Imperial  decree, 
either  to  judge  any  one  of  us  or  to  attempt  anything  of 
the  kind,  especially  agaiiist  a  greater  throne'  And 
anyhow  he  ought  to  have  called  upon  us,  together  with 
the  whole  Synod,  to  answer  his  charges.^  Cyril  seems 
here  to  speak  of  Alexandria  alone  as  a  '  greater  throne,' 
although  at  this  time  Ephesus  may  perhaps  have  con- 
sidered itself  also  to  be  in  the  same  category,  being  more 
than  a  metropolitical  see.^  But  Alexandria  was  a  '  See  of 
Peter.' 

Accordingly,  on  Cyril's  proposal,  three  bishops  were 
now  sent  to  the  Bishop  of  Antioch  to  summon  him  to 
appear  before  the  Synod.  But  they  found  ihim  sur- 
rounded with  soldiers,  and  were  insulted  with  the 
blasphemous  talk  of  his  retinue.  On  the  return  of  the 
episcopal  messengers,  Cyril  proposed  that  the  Synod 
should  at  once  proceed  to  declare  the  sentence  of  the 
Antiochene  party  null  and  void.  But  Juvenal  of  Jeru- 
salem interposed  suggesting  that  John  should  be  cited 
again.  In  the  course  of  his  speech  Juvenal  roundly 
condemned  the  Patriarch  of  Antioch  for  not  hastening 

»  Mansi,  iv.  1308. 

2  Cf.  Duchesne,  Origines  du  culte  chrdtien,  p.  25  (2nd  ed.),  for  the 
position  of  Ephesus  at  this  period.  Bossuet  considers  that  the  expres- 
sion refers  to  Alexandria  alone. 


JOHN   OF  ANTIOCH  97 

to  appear  before  the  Synod,  considering  its  character, 
*  and  to  obey  and  respect  the  Apostolic  throne  of  Eome 
sitting  with  us.'  He  also  in  some  way  brought  in  the 
Apostolic  throne  of  Jerusalem.  But  he  spoke  of  the  see 
of  Eome  as  that  '  before  which  especially  it  has  been  the 
custom  for  the  see  of  Antioch  to  be  directed  and  judged, 
according  to  Apostolical  order  and  tradition.'  ^  In  fact, 
he  took  up  the  line  of  thought  suggested  by  Cyril,  when 
he  spoke  of  Alexandria  as  a  '  greater  see,'  and  while 
echoing  Cyril's  contention  that  a  '  greater  throne  especi- 
ally '  could  not  be  judged  by  Antioch,  he  probably  added 
some  glorification  of  his  own  see,  which  was,  in  fact,  the 
characteristic  of  his  rule  at  Jerusalem.  All  this  was  in 
accordance  with  the  principle  that  the  sees  that  were 
under  no  metropolitan,  but  were  afterwards  called 
Patriarchal  sees,  could  only  be  judged  by  '  the  Apostolic 
See,'  or  by  a  General  Council,  which,  of  course,  in  order 
to  be  general,  must  include,  or  be  confirmed  by,  that  see. 
For  Eome  was  in  conciliar  language  '  the  Apostolic  See,' 
not  merely  the  Apostolic  See  of  Bovie,  or  of  the  West ; 
it  loas  this  latter,  but  it  was  also  the  former — '  the 
Apostolic  See  '  simply—  a  designation  never  bestowed  on 
any  other.     The  Councils  speak  of  the  Apostolic  See  of 

*  Mansi,  iv.  1312.  The  grammatical  order  of  this  long  sentence  Is 
-confused  in  the  original  Greek.  Juvenal  seems  to  speak  of  the  Apo- 
stoUcal  see  of  [Jerusalem  as  '  sitting  with  us,^  and  as  though  that  were 
also  to  be  obeyed  by  Antioch.  But  it  cannot  be  supposed  that  he  spoke 
quite  such  nonsense  as  that.  He  had  a  quarrel  with  Antioch,  and  in 
this  very  Synod  tried  to  wrest  from  its  jurisdiction  some  of  its  fairest 
provinces;  but  he  was  baulked  by  Cyril  (cf.  Leon.  Ep.  119).  But  he 
never  claimed  any  jurisdiction  over  Antioch  itself.  In  speaking  of  the 
traditional  subjection  of  Antioch  to  Eome,  he  is  doubtless  alluding  to 
the  case  of  Paulinus  of  Antioch,  in  the  last  century,  and  Paul  of  Samo- 
sata  at  a  more  distant  period. 

H 


98         THE  COUNCIL  OF  EPHESUS 

Alexandria,  and  the  Apostolic  See  of  Jerusalem  and  the 
Apostolic  See  of  Eome ;  but  when  '  the  Apostolic  See ' 
simply  is  spoken  of,  all  the  world  knew  that  Eome  was 
meant. 

Bossuet  puts  the  whole  matter  with  his  accustomed 
terseness  and  lucidity.     He  says  : 

*  Lorsque  Jean  d'Antioche,  avec  son  concile,  osa 
deposer  Cyrille  et  avec  lui  Memnon,  eveque  d'Ephese,  on 
lui  reprocha  non  seulement  d'avoir  prononce  contre  un 
eveque  "  d'un  des  plus  grands  sieges,"  ce  qui  regardait 
Cyrille,  patriarche  d'Alexandrie,  mais  encore  d'avoir 
depose  deux  eveques  sur  lesquels  il  n'avait  aucun  pouvoir, 
ce  qui  convenait  egalement  a  Cyrille  et  a  Memnon. 
C'etaient  la,  dit  le  concile  d'Ephese,  deux  attentats  qui 
renversaient  tout  I'ordre  de  I'Eglise.  Mais  quand  le 
Pape  prononce,  surtout  en  matiere  d'heresie,  contre 
quelque  eveque  que  ce  soit  et  quelque  siege  qu'il  remplisse, 
loin  d'y  trouver  a  redire,  chacun  se  soumet :  ce  qui 
prouve  qu'il  est  reconnu  pour  le  superieur  universel.'^ 

John  was  twice  more  cited,  but  with  similar  and 
even  worse  results,  the  bishops  being  personally  treated 
with  ignominy,  and  John  saying  that  '  since  the  causes 
of  the  Court  are  transferred  to  the  Church,  he  was 
transferring  the  cause  of  the  Church  to  the  Court.'  The 
Synod  thereupon  proceeded  on  the  following  day  to 
pronounce  all  that  John  of  Antioch  had  done  null  and 
void,2  and  passed  sentence  of  excommunication  upon 
him  and  his  associates,  depriving  them  of  episcopal 
faculties,   until   they   should    acknowledge   their   fault, 

1  Remarques  sur  Vhistoire   des   conciles,   (Euvres,   xxx.  526   (Ver- 
sailles,  1817). 

2  They  called  the  petition  of  Cyril  and  Memnon  aKoXoveos  =  in  order. 
Cf.  supra,  pp.  62,  85. 


JOHN   OF   ANTIOCH  99 

adding  that  '  unless  they  do  that  quickly,  they  will 
undergo  the  complete  sentence  of  the  canons.'  ^ 

They  then  wrote  their  third  letter  to  the  Emperor. 
In  this  they  described  the  real  character  of  John  of 
Antioch's  crew,  and  the  uncanonical  nature  of  his 
procedure  against  Cyril,  their  *  head.'  The  burden  of 
their  complaint  against  John  was  that  his  action  was 
out  of  order  ^ — ecclesiastical  or  canonical. 

But  a  more  important  letter,  so  far  as  our  subject  is 
concerned,  was  now  written  to  Pope  Celestine.  It  was 
their  first  report  to  him.  And  it  opens  in  a  way  in  which 
a  Synod  of  Eastern  bishops  would  never  address  any  but 
the  occupant  of  '  the  Apostolic  throne.'  They  say  :  '  Your 
Holiness 's  zeal  concerning  religion  and  care  concerning 
the  orthodox  faith,  a  care  so  dear  and  well-pleasing  to 
God,  the  Saviour  of  us  all,  have  come  to  be  worthy  of  all 
admiration.  For  it  is  your  wont,  who  are  so  great, 
to  be  distinguished  in  all  things  and  to  make  the 
stability  of  the  Churches  the  object  of  your  zeal. 
But  since  it  was  necessary  that  all  things  that  have 
followed  should  be  brought  to  the  knowledge  of  your 
Holiness,  we  write  perforce. '  ^  They  enter  into  some 
detail  as  to  John  of  Antioch's  delay,  proving  that  it  was 
quite  possible  for  him  to  have  been  with  them,  if  he 
had  wished  it.^    And  after  describing  the  action  of  the 


'  Mansi,  iv.  1323. 

'^  l|(M  irdarfs  aKoKovQias  iKK\-n<Tia<T'TiKr\s,  iv.  1328.     Cf .  supra,  pp.  62,  85. 

3  Mansi,  iv.  1329. 

^  Dr.  Bright's  elaborate  condemnation  of  Cyril  on  this  point  in  his 
Waymarks,  &c.,  pp.  150-158,  amounts  to  a  condemnation  of  the  very 
position  of  the  Synod  as  a  canonical  gathering.  Garnier  notices  that 
if,  as  John  of  Antioch  insisted,  they  were  violating  the  canons  in  not 
waiting  for  him,  then  they  were  not  merely  not  an  (Ecumenical  Council, 


100        THE  COUNCIL  OF  EPHESUS 

Synod  in  regard  to  Nestorius,  they  reach  a  climax  when 
they  say  that  Celestine's  letter  was  read,  '  by  which  ^  he 
was  with  good  reason  condemned  as  having  written 
blasphemy  and  inserted  miholy  sayings  in  his  own 
interpretations,  more  especially  as  he  was  so  far  from 
repenting  '  (the  allusion  is  obviously  to  Celestine's  letter 
to  Cyril  about  a  time  for  repentance  being  given  through 
the  Council  being  summoned)  '  that  he  dared  to  say  in 
discussion  with  certain  holy  and  learned  bishops  at 
Ephesus,  "  I  do  not  confess  a  God  two  or  three  months 
old  ; "  and  other  things  he  said  more  disastrous  still.' 

They  then  proceed  to  give  a  detailed  account  of  John 
of  Antioch's  doings  on  his  arrival  in  Ephesus,  and  report 
that  they  have  excommunicated  him,  but  not  degraded 
him  from  his  office.  '  This  '  (they  say)  '  by  way  of  con- 
quering his  precipitancy  by  long-suffering  ' — that  is  to 
say,  overcoming  evil  by  good — *  though  he  would  justly 
and  lawfully  have  suffered  it,  we  have  reserved  for  the 
judgment  of  your  Holiness.'  There  were,  in  fact,  two 
superiors  of  Antioch,  which  was  one  of  the  '  greater 
sees ' — viz.  the  See  of  Peter  itself,  and  a  General 
Council,  which  included  the  See  of  Eome,  or  must  be 
confirmed  by  it.  The  Council  was  now  (Ecumenical  in 
any  matter  that  came  properly  within  its  cognisance,^ 
by  reason  of  the  presence  of  the  legates  from  Eome,  and 


but  their  acts  had  no  validity  at  all.  But  the  Synod  itself  answers 
every  objection  brought  by  Dr.  Bright  against  Cyril  for  beginning  with- 
out John.  Dr.  Pusey's  account,  which  Dr.  Bright  is  engaged  in  contra- 
dicting, keeps  much  closer  to  the  documents  and  is  supported  by 
Hefele's  account.     See  also  Garnier's  Preface  to  Marius  Mercator. 

'  hC  ?is,  1332. 

-  It  could  not  overstep  the  programme  laid  down  at  Rome ;  but 
Celestine  had  expressly  included  the  treatment  of  erring  bishops  in  its 
work. 


JOHN   OF   ANTIOCH  101 

might  lawfully  have  degraded  John  of  Antioch  ;  but  by 
way  of  forbearance  they  left  it  to  Antioch's  natural 
superior.  The  Synod  goes  on  to  contrast  the  ludicrous 
sight  of  a  Synod  acting  as  John  of  Antioch's  did,  con- 
sisting of  men  of  such  character,  and  being  a  mere 
handful.  '  What  authority  could  they  have  against  a 
Synod  gathered  from  all  quarters  under  heaven  ?  For 
there  sat  with  us  also  the  bishops  sent  by  your  Holiness, 
Arcadius  and  Projectus,  and  with  them  the  presbyter 
Philip  ;  these  secured  your  presence  to  us  and  filled  the 
place  of  the  Apostolic  See.'  They  are  sure  that  the 
Pope  will  be  indignant,  considering  what  harm  must 
come  to  the  Church  '  if  freedom  is  given  to  those  who 
choose  to  insult  even  the  greater  sees  and  to  pass  sen- 
tences illegally  and  uncanonically  on  those  over  whom 
they  have  no  jurisdiction.'  ^  Clearly  it  was  the  presence 
of  the  legates  that  put  the  Council  within  its  rights  in 
passing  sentence  on  a  Bishop  of  Antioch,  and  as  clearly 
the  Bishop  of  Eome  could  do  the  same  himself.  The 
bishops  left  it  to  him,  not  as  their  deputy,  but  as  occu- 
pant of  '  the  Apostolic  See.' 

They  conclude  with  praising  Cyril  as  the  mainstay 
of  the  faith,  and  with  speaking  of  their  action  with  regard 
to  the  Pelagians.  They  say  that  '  the  things  decreed  by 
your  Holiness  '  concerning  that  set  of  heretics  were  in 
the  judgment  of  the  Synod  to  remain  firm.  Notice  that 
what  Capreolus  spoke  of  as  due  to  the  Apostolic  See  and 
the  agreement  of  the  bishops,  the  Synod  here  speaks  of 

*  Mansi,  iv.  1336,  '  the  greater  sees ' — the  plural  being  used 
possibly  because  a  general  law  is  laid  down,  not  because  Ephesus 
was  included.  The  definite  article  would  probably  have  been  omitted 
in  that  case.  At  the  same  time,  just  then  Ephesus,  as  has  been  re- 
marked above,  may  have  regarded  herself  as  a  'greater  see.' 


102        THE  COUNCIL  OF  EPHESUS 

as  decreed  by  Celestine  simply  ;  and  it  must  be  remem- 
bered that  to  judge  that  decrees  should  remain  firm  was 
the  formula  used  of  their  adhesion  to  the  decrees  of 
Nicaea. 


Note. 

Dr.  Bright  has  a  characteristic  criticism  on  the  passage 
concerning  the  *  greater  sees,'  as  it  appeared  in  the  first 
edition  of  this  work.     He  says  : 

'  And  here  is  an  illustration  of  Mr.  Eivington's  "  ways." 
(1)  He  makes  the  Council  give  as  its  reason  for  this  reserva- 
tion that  **  the  matter  concerned  one  of  the  '  greater  thrones  '  " 
...  (2)  He  glosses  the  assertion  of  a  right  to  depose  John 
as  if  it  depended  on  the  presence  of  Eoman  legates  ;  and  (3) 
he  omits  the  reason  actually  assigned  for  not  doing  so — 
"  that  by  forbearance  we  might  overcome  his  temerity "  ' 
[Boman  See,  p.  168).     The  numeration  is  my  own. 

As  to  (1)  :  it  is  untrue  that  I  '  made  the  Council  give  as  its 
reason,  &c.'  The  words  were  '  They  left  the  severer  sentence,' 
not  '  They  said  that  they  left.'  When  their  words  were  quoted 
it  was  made  plain  in  that  same  paragraph.  I  have  enlarged 
the  passage  in  this  edition,  so  that,  at  any  rate,  there  may 
be  no  mistake  about  its  meaning. 

As  to  (2)  :  the  *  gloss,'  in  the  passage  alluded  to,  is  the 
actual  explanation  given  by  the  Synod  itself,  only  Dr. 
Bright,  as  so  often  in  his  book,  just  gives  a  turn  by  omitting 
the  definite  article,  which  makes  a  difference.  It  was  the 
presence  of  the  legates  as  a  matter  of  fact  which  gave  the 
Synod  the  right  to  deal  with  John  of  Antioch.  They  would 
have  had  that  right,  if  assembled  for  the  purpose  of  dealing 
with  it,  without  the  presence  of  Papal  legates.  But  in  this 
case  they  put  forward  the  presence  of  the  legates  in  con- 
trasting their  authority  with  that  of  John.    Cf.  sujrra,  p.  101. 


JOHN   OF  ANTIOCH  103 

As  to  (3)  :  they  imply  that  they  would  not  have  exercised 
this  forbearance  had  it  not  baen  that  Antioch  had  a  natural 
superior  at  Eome.  It  was  bicause  Antioch  was  one  of  the 
greater  sees,  and  therefore  naturally  under  Eome  directly, 
that  they  decided  to  overcome  evil  by  good — i.e.  exercise  for- 
bearance where  he  had  been  so  precipitate — by  letting  the 
severer  sentence  rest  with  Eome. 


CHAPTEE  X 

TWO    DECREES    OF    THE    COUNCIL 

1.  The  Nicene  Greed.     2.  The  Independence  of  Cyprus. 

The  Council  concluded  its  sessions  with  two  decisions 
of  unequal  importance ;  both  of  them,  however,  have 
figured  in  recent  controversy. 

I.  In  the  sixth  session,  the  fathers  decided  that  no 
Symbol  or  Creed  was  to  be  composed  or  promulged  or 
proffered  to  any  who  sought  admission  to  the  Church, 
save  only  the  Creed  of  Nicaea.^  Ever  since  the  Council 
of  Constantinople,  and  indeed  before  it,  various  *  Symbols ' 
or  Creeds  had  been  drawn  up  and  used,  some  in  agree- 
ment with  the  Nicene,  others  not.  An  instance  of  the 
latter  was  now  produced  before  the  Synod  by  a  certain 
Charisius,  who  had  been  cajoled  into  signing  a  Symbol 
which  is  generally  referred  to  Theodore  of  Mopsuestia 
and  was  much  in  vogue  among  the  sympathisers  with 
Nestorius.  The  Council  accordingly  did  what  the  Nicene 
Council  itself  could  not  well  do,  nor  the  Constantino- 
politan ;  it  strictly  forbade  any  other  Creed  but  that  of 
Nicaea  from  being  used.  That  was  the  opos  in  the  sense 
of  a  Symbol  which  was  to  suffice,  at  any  rate  for  the 

'  Mansi,  iv.  1361.  The  old  Latin  edition  of  the  Acts  published  by 
Mansi  in  his  fifth  volume  (p.  559)  should  be  consulted.  The  Acts  of 
his  session  have  been  mutilated. 


THE  NICENE  CREED  105 

present.  In  this  way  the  Third  Council  of  the  Church 
strengthened  the  material  rule  of  faith ;  the  Apostolic 
deposit  was  embodied  and  expanded  in  the  Nicene  Creed, 
and  the  fathers  had  met,  as  Cyril  said  in  his  statement 
to  the  Synod,  for  the  purpose  of  strengthening  the 
definition  of  the  Apostolic  faith  and  investigating  the 
heresy  of  Nestorius.^  They  effected  this  by  insisting  on 
the  Nicene  Creed  as  the  one  Symbol  to  be  offered  to 
heretics  before  their  reconciliation  with  the  Church,  or 
to  Pagans  on  seeking  admission  into  the  Fold.  The 
term  Ssotoko^  (Mother  of  God)  was  not  inserted  in  that 
Symbol ;  although  several  words  were  added  which 
indicated  the  agreement  of  the  fathers  at  Ephesus  with 
those  at  Constantinople  in  381. 

Two  difficulties  arise.  How  could  they  consistently 
endorse  the  use  of  the  Constantinopolitan  form  of  the 
Nicene  Symbol,  since  this  contained  additions  to  the 
original  Creed?  and  how  had  they  safeguarded  the 
Nicene  Creed  against  the  misinterpretations  of  Nes- 
torius  ? 

The  answer  to  the  first  question  was  debated 
centuries  afterwards — not,  indeed,  for  the  first  time,  but 
most  fully — at  the  Council  of  Florence  in  1438.  The 
Bishop  of  Ephesus  at  that  Council  inveighed  against  any 
even  verbal  alteration  in  the  Nicene  Creed,  on  the  ground 
that  the  (Ecumenical  Council  of  431  had  strictly  pro- 
hibited such  change.  The  Archbishop  of  Ehodes  in  his 
answer  pointed  out  that  an  addition  was  one  thing — 
implying,  as  it  did,  something  added  from  without — and 
development  or  explication  from  within  was  another.  An 
explanation  was  not,  he  argued,  an  addition.  And  so  the 
Constantinopolitan  Symbol,  being  but  an  explication  of 

'  Mansi,  iv.  1305. 


106        THE  COUNCIL  OF  EPHESUS 

what  was  already  in  the  Nicene  Creed,  made  the  two — that 
of  325  and  that  of  381 — but  one.  The  Bishop  of  Ephesus 
had  himself  already  excused  the  elongation  of  the  Nicene 
into  the  Constantinopolitan  on  the  ground  that  they  were 
but  one.  So  that  the  principle  underlying  the  injunction 
of  the  Ephesine  fathers  in  431  is  contained  in  the 
original  meaning  of  the  word  they  used,  hspa  irio-n?, 
lit.  a  different  Creed.  The  Constantinopolitan  form  of 
the  Symbol  was  not  that.  But  in  order  to  preserve  the 
Creed  intact,  they  forbade  in  reality,  as  the  context  shows, 
any  other  Creed,  which  is  frequently  the  meaning  of 
sTspa  in  Byzantine  Greek.  This  particular  form  of 
prohibition  was,  in  its  nature,  temporary.  They  could 
not  bind  a  future  Council.  They  could  not  prohibit  the 
use  of  the  Athanasian  Symbol,  when  it  should  come  on 
to  the  scene,  nor —to  leap  some  centuries  forward — the 
Creed  of  Pope  Pius  IV.,  which  contains  the  Nicene  Creed. 
But  they  did  strengthen  the  Apostolic  faith  by  corrobo- 
rating, for  the  first  time  in  full  (Ecumenical  Synod,  the 
Creed  of  Nicsea  in  its  Constantinopolitan  form,  making 
it  the  only  Creed  for  use  in  the  reconciliation  of 
heretics. 

But  if  this  canon,  or  decision,  of  the  Council  of 
Ephesus  consisted  in  simply  prohibiting  the  use  of  any 
other  Creed  but  that  of  Nicaea,  how  could  they  be  said  to 
have  safeguarded  that  Creed  ?  For  if  merely  signing 
the  Nicene  Creed  were  sufficient,  was  not  Nestorius 
prepared  to  do  that  ?  If  the  mere  reaffirmation  of  that 
Creed  were  sufficient,  what  heretic  would  have  been  con- 
demned in  the  fifth  century  ? 

St.  Cyril  himself  touched  upon  this  difficulty  in  his 
letter  to  Nestorius.  '  It  will  not  suffice  for  your  Holiness 
merely  to  confess  with  us  '  [i.e.  merely  to  reaffirm]  *  the 


THE   NICENE   CREED  107 

Symbol  of  the  faith  once  put  forth  by  the  Holy  Spirit  by 
the  holy  and  great  Synod  once  assembled  at  Nicaea. 
For  even  if  you  acknowledge  the  words  with  your  lips, 
you  have  not  understood  it  rightly.'  ^  Cyril  then  went 
on  to  say  that  Nestorius  must  further  withdraw  his  own 
writings  and  sayings  and  teach  what  the  rest  of  the 
Church  teaches— as  contained  in  his  (Cyril's)  writings, 
which,  he  says,  had  been  sanctioned  by  the  Roman 
Synod  and  by  all  the  bishops  at  Alexandria.  '  For  this ' 
{i.e.  the  interpretation  of  the  Nicene  Creed  given  in  those 
writings)  '  is  the  faith  of  the  Catholic  and  Apostolic 
Church,  with  which  all  the  orthodox  bishops.  West  and 
East,  agree.'  It  is  clear  that  Cyril  understood  by  '  the 
right  definition  of  the  Apostolic  faith '  the  Nicene 
Creed  as  interpreted  b}^  Celestine's  decree  and  by  the 
already  consentient  witness  of  East  and  West.  This,  in 
the  fullest  sense,  was  the  definition  (opos)  which  from 
Cyril's  point  of  view,  the  Council  assembled  to  strengthen. 
This  decree  of  Celestine's,  involving  a  particular  inter- 
pretation of  the  Nicene  Creed,  which  he  sent  to  Nestorius 
and  to  the  people  and  clergy  i  of  Constantinople,  is  called 
in  the  Acts  of  the  Council  the  opos  ^ ;  it  was  a  decree 
concerning  the  faith,  as  Cyril  had  impressed  on  John  of 
Antioch.  It  was  '  not  about  matters  of  little  moment, 
but  on  behalf  of  th^  faith  itself  and  of  the  Churches 
which  are  everywhere  disturbed  ;  '  such  are  his  words."^ 
Nestorius,  said  Celestine,  was  to  teach  what  the  Roman 
and  Alexandrian  Churches  and  the  whole  Catholic  Church 
and  the  Church  of  Constantinople  in  past  times  taught 
as  to  the  faith  of  Nicaea.  This,  therefore,  was  the  opos 
or  decree  of  the  Apostolic  See,  which  related  to  an 
individual  archbishop  on  a  matter  of  faith.  And  if  we 
'  Mansi,  iv.  1071.  ^  j^^^  io48.  '  Ibid.  1052. 


108  THE   COUNCIL   OF  EPTIESUS 

ask  further  what  exactly  the  definition  of  the  faith  was, 
the  answer  is  that  it  was  that  interpretation  of  the 
Nicene  Creed  which  was  given  in  the  Eoman  Synod  of 
430,  when  Pope  Celestine  insisted  on  the  Hypostatic 
union  as  enshrined  in  the  term  Ssotokos  (Mother  of 
God).i 

And  so  the  Bishop  of  Ephesus  at  the  Council  of 
Florence,  in  its  fifth  session,  points  out  how  careful  the 
Ephesine  fathers  of  431  were  not  to  violate  their  own 
rule  of  not  adding  to  the  Nicene  Creed ;  seeing  that 
while  they  *  then  sanctioned  the  word  Ssotokos  (Mother 
of  God)  in  opposition  to  the  delirious  dreams  of  Nes- 
torius,'  they  did  not  insert  it  in  the  Creed,  '  although 
the  term  was  most  necessary  in  the  dogmas  ' — i.e.  to  be 
included  in  the  dogmas — '  of  our  salvation.'  ^ 

Thus  there  was  a  definition  of  the  faith  on  a  particu- 
lar point  given  by  Celestine  at  the  Eoman  Synod  ;  it  was 
involved  in  the  decree  concerning  Nestorius  ;  it  was 
accepted  by  the  Synod  ;  it  explained  the  Nicene  Creed  ; 
that  Creed  was  now  understood  to  contain  it,  and  the 
Synod  decreed  that  no  other  Creed  should  be  proposed  to 
heretics  or  Pagans.  But  always  in  the  case  of  heretics, 
the  abjuration  of  their  particular  heresy  was  required, 
and  this,  in  the  case  of  those  tainted  with  Nestorianism, 
included  an  acknowledgment  of  the  single  Personality 
in  the  two  Natures  of  our  Incarnate  Lord. 

Every  Synod  had  its  opos,  its  definition  of  some  kind  ; 
so  that  the  Sixth  Council  renewed  expressly  (to  use  its 
own  words)  the  '  definitions  '  {opot)  of  the  five  preceding 
Synods. 

There  was  another  reason  why  Celestine's  definition 
of  the  faith  would  not  naturally  lead  to  the  insertion  of 

'  Cf.  supra,  p.  7.  "^  Mansi,  xxxi.  533. 


THE   NICENE   CREED  109 

its  crucial  term  in  the  Nicene  Creed.  It  was  there 
already  in  a  peculiar  sense,  in  the  very  terms  of  the  Creed. 
The  Creed  said  that  the  '  Son  '  was  '  born  of  the  Virgin 
Mary.'  Now  the  Consubstantiality  of  the  Son  to,  or 
with,  the  Father  had  already  been  defined  :  it  followed  • 
that  Mary  was  the  Mother  of  God. 

But  that  this  truth  was  defined  at  Ephesus  was  the 
constant  tradition  of  the  Church.  Photius  thus  describes 
the  Council.  He  says  that  the  fathers  '  dogmatised,'  i.e. 
taught  dogmatically,  that  '  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  is  wor- 
shipped and  proclaimed,  in  accordance  with  the  tra- 
dition of  the  Fathers,  in  one  and  the  selfsame  Person,' 
and  that  they  '  delivered  or  handed  down  that  accordingly 
His  immaculate  and  ever-virgin  Mother  is  rightly  and 
truly  called  also  the  Mother  of  God.'  '^  This  is  the  short 
description  of  the  Council's  work  by  one  who  has  been 
called  '  the  most  learned  man  that  ever  sat  on  that 
throne'^  (Constantinople).  And  elsewhere  Photius  has 
preserved  a  fragment  by  one  of  the  most  orthodox  succes- 
sors of  Cyril  in  the  See  of  Alexandria,  St.  Eulogius, 
the  friend  of  our  Gregory  the  Great.  Eulogius  says  that 
certain  heretics  had  arraigned  the  Council  of  Chalcedon 
for  '  having  put  forth  a  definition  of  the  faith  '  {opov 
£ic6sfjLsvr)v)  contrary,  as  they  asserted,  to  the  injunction  of 
the  Council  of  Ephesus.  They  apparently  misunderstood 
the  difference  between  a  definition  and  a  Creed. "^  Eulogius 
accordingly  answers  that  the  Council  of  Ephesus  could 
not  have  meant  what  these  heretics  supposed,  for  it  had 
done  the  same  thing  itself.  '  Decreeing  this  very  thing, 
it  defines  what   no   other  Synod  defined  before  ' ;  and 

'  Lupus  Christianus,  Sijnod.  Deer.    Pars  I.  p.  815  (BruxelJis,  1673). 
2  Mansi,  iv.  457.  ^  Puller's  Primitive  Saints,  &c.,  p.  153. 

^  Lupus,  p.  963. 


110        THE  COUNCIL  OF  EPHESUS 

'  the  Hypostatic  union  is  its  definition,  which  had  not 
been  defined  by  the  older  Synods.'  ^ 

Where  is  this  definition  ?  The  Council  itself  drew 
up  no  definition  ;  but  it  accepted  Celestine's  definition 
enshrined  in  his  decree  concerning  Nestorius.  (Mansi,  iv. 
548-552.)  This  decree  the  bishops  had  professedly 
executed,  and  in  doing  so  had  given  a  Conciliar,  as  dis- 
tinguished from  a  Papal,  definition  :  in  other  words, 
Celestine  defined,  i.e.  definitively  settled,  the  truth  as  to 
the  Hypostatic  union  contained  in  the  term  *  Mother  of 
God,'  and  the  Council  made  the  definition  its  own.  ^ 

II.  Three  Cyprian  bishops  also  brought  before  the 
Synod  their  grievance  about  the  assumption  of  jurisdic- 
tion over  them  on  the  part  of  the  Bishops  of  Antioch. 

'  opi^fi  avrh  tovto  Tvirouffa  &  /XTjSerepa  tuv  irph  avrris  SioopicraTO  .... 
aWa  Kal  r)  Ka6^  inroaraffLv  'duaaris  avTrjs  iariv  '6pos,  h  ra7s  irp^crfivrepais  tcHv 
avvodcou  oh  Sicopiarai.     Photii  Biblioth.,  cod.  ccxxx. 

-  It  will  be  seen  from  this  how  very  wide  of  the  mark  Dr.  Bright  is 
when  he  writes  that  '  Celestine's  "  direction  "  was  not  a  definition  of 
the  faith ;  and  a  little  more  acquaintance  with  ancient  dogmatic 
phraseology  would  have  saved  Mr.  Kivington  from  this  blunder ' 
(Roman  See,  p.  167).  There  is  here,  first,  a  wrong  translation  of  tvttos, 
which  is  '  decree,'  not  '  direction ' ;  and  secondly,  the  idea  which  he 
goes  on  to  express  that  the  office  of  the  Council  was  merely  that  of 
'  synodically  reaffirming '  the  Nicene  Creed,  shows  how  little  he  has  based 
his  interpretation  on  the  history  of  the  Council  as  a  whole  :  and,  thirdly, 
we  see  such  a  writer  as  Photius  and  such  a  person  as  Eulogius  (not  to 
speak  of  others  innumerable)  differ  from  Dr.  Bright  as  to  the  meaning 
of  '  ancient  dogmatic  phraseology.'  And  to  come  to  more  modern  times, 
is  anyone  more  entitled  to  speak  on  '  ancient  dogmatic  phraseology ' 
than  Mansi  ?  Yet  Mansi  again  and  again  speaks  of  Celestine's 
'  definition  of  the  faith.'  See  his  Animadversio'nes  in  Natalis  Alex. 
H.  E.  ix.  473,  477,  and  558.  But  in  truth  the  matter  is  settled  by 
Philip's  words  to  the  Council,  when  he  says  '  Celestine  wpiaev.^  ^The 
'  blunder  '  of  which  Dr.  Bright  speaks  and  the '  ignorance  of  ancient  dog- 
matic phraseology  '  which  Dr.  Bright  imputes  to  me  must  be  assigned  to 
another  quarter. 


POSITION   OF   CYPRUS  111 

It  had  been  held  on  the  one  hand  that  Cyprus,  which 
belonged  to  the  civil  province  of  which  Antioch  was  the 
centre,  was  included  by  the  sixth  canon  of  Nicaea  in  the 
ecclesiastical  province  of  the  Bishops  of  Antioch,  but 
that  during  the  Eustathian  schism  at  Antioch  this  order 
had  been  disturbed  by  the  Arians.  On  the  termination 
of  the  schism.  Pope  Innocent  I.  wrote  to  Alexander  of 
Antioch,  and  on  the  strength  of  his  assertion  decided 
that  the  Cyprians  ought  to  return  to  their  obedience  in 
accordance  with  the  Nicene  canons.  The  Cyprians,  how- 
ever, maintained  that  they  had  not  originally  been  under 
Antioch,  and  that  therefore  their  subjection  to  that  see 
was  not  contemplated  by  the  Nicene  canon.  Great 
violence,  moreover,  had  been  used  by  the  Antiochene 
party  to  induce  the  Cyprian  bishops  to  surrender  their 
independence. 

The  Synod  accordingly  decreed  that  if  the  facts  were 
as  the  Cyprian  bishops  stated,  and  the  facts  appeared  to 
be  established  as  such,  the  Cyprians  were  right  to  resist 
the  pressure  of  Antioch  ;  and  they  decreed,  what  indeed, 
except  as  bearing  on  the  particular  case,  hardly  needed 
decreeing,  that  if  anyone  seized  a  province  and  subjected 
it  by  force  to  itself,  he  should  be  bound  to  restore  it  to 
its  independence,  and  the  provinces  were  to  remain  with 
their  territories  undisturbed,  in  accordance  with  ancient 
custom.^  The  decree  doubtless  had  reference  to  the 
attempt  which  Juvenal  made  in  this  Synod  to  encroach 
on  the  province  of  Antioch,  as  well  as  to  the  violent  oc- 
cupation of  the  Cyprian  province  by  the  Bishop  of 
Antioch.  There  was  at  that  moment  in  the  East,  and 
had  been  for  many  years,  a  lust  of  power  and  attempts 
to  extend  their  jurisdiction  on  the  part  of  the  more  im- 

'  Mansi,  iv.  1469. 


112  THE   COUNCIL   OF   EPHESQS 

portant  sees,  and  the  Council,  accordingly,  very  properly 
spoke  of  the  danger  of  worldly  pride  in  these  ambitious 
projects. 

But  Dr.  Bright  and  other  Anglican  writers  see  in 
this  provision  and  this  expression  an  allusion  to  Eome — 
on  the  ground  that  the  actual  expression  used  by  the 
Ephesine  fathers — '  the  arrogance  of  authority  '—closely 
resembles  an  expression  used  some  years  before  by  the 
Africans  in  deprecating  the  presence  of  legates,  viz.  *  the 
smoke  of  worldly  pride  '  ;  and  that  this  close  resemblance, 
not  identity,  of  expression,  '  seems  to  demand  some  ex- 
planation.' ^  The  explanation  of  the  use  of  the  words 
*  arrogance  of  authority '  is  not  far  to  seek  when  we  con- 
sider the  history  of  Juvenal  of  Jerusalem  on  the  one 
hand,  and  of  the  Antiochene  party  on  the  other.  And 
since  no  one,  with  the  actual  historical  situation  before 
him  could  suppose  that  the  Council  were  thinking  of 
anything  going  on  in  the  West  at  that  moment.  Dr. 
Bright  has  recourse  to  the  fact  that  '  Eastern  bishops 
ninety  years  before  had  shown  some  jealousy  of  Eoman 
self-assertion  '  and  therefore  it  is  not  '  incredible  '  that 
they  '  should  have  thought  the  words  opportune  in  case 
of  its  recurrence  ' !  Such  an  interpretation  of  historical 
documents  only  needs  to  be  stated :  its  statement  is  its 
refutation. 

As  regards  the  encroachment  on  provinces  not  be- 
longing to  an  exarch,  it  would  be  difficult  to  bring  in 
the  claim  to  universal  jurisdiction  made  by '  the  Apostolic 
See.'  The  two  things  are  not  on  the  same  plane.  And 
as  regards  universal  jurisdiction,  we  have  seen  that  the 
Ephesine  fathers  admitted  this  in  the  Apostolic  See  ; 
and  consequently  their  canon  must  be  interpreted  in 
'  Roman  See,  pp.  169,  170. 


POSITION   OF  CYPRUS  113 

accordance  with  their  belief.  And  in  view  of  various 
precarious  applications  of  this  decree,  it  must  be  re- 
membered that  these  bishops  at  Ephesus  could  not  fix  the 
territorial  limits  of  provinces  for  ever  and  aye.  They 
were  providing  for  the  East  and  for  things  as  they  were. 
Once  more,  Dr.  Bright  asks  '  How,  on  Vatican  prin- 
ciples, could  a  General  Council,  even  provisionally, 
reverse  the  alleged  "  decision  "  of  a  Pope  ?  '  ^  The 
answer  is  that  a  decision  which  avowedly  rested  on  the 
assertion  of  one  party  to  a  suit,'-^  as  this  did,  and  which 
said  (as  the  Pope's  decree  did)  '  we  persuade  them,'  could 
be  *  provisionally  reversed,'  on  fresh  evidence  being  pro- 
duced, without  any  violence  done  to '  Vatican  principles.' 
Infallibility  does  not  come  into  the  question ;  for  that 
has  to  do  with  ex  cathedra  pronouncements,  and  there 
was  no  pronouncement  of  that  kind  in  Innocent's  de- 
cision. No  dogmatic  fact  was  concerned ;  no  matter  of 
faith.  It  was  a  matter  of  discipline.  Neither  was 
there  disobedience  in  regard  to  the  supreme  jurisdiction 
of  the  Apostolic  See  :  for  the  whole  question  was  one 
of  facts.  If  it  was  proved  that  the  claim  of  Antioch  was 
not  involved  in  the  Nicene  canon,  because  Cyprus  had 
not  been  in  her  jurisdiction  before  the  Nicene  Council 
met,  the  very  ground  on  which  Innocent  avowedly  went 
would  sanction  Cyprus  being  recognised  as  independent 
of  Antioch. 

'  Roman  See,  p.  169. 

2  '  Cyprios  sane  asserts  '  are  Innocent's  words  (Ep.  xviii.  c.  2). 


CONCLUSION 

The  story,  interesting  as  it  is,  of  the  Imperial  assent  to 
the  condemnation  of  Nestorius,  and  of  the  eventual  re- 
conciliation of  Cyril  and  John  of  Antioch,  does  not 
belong  to  my  subject.  This  only  may  be  noticed,  viz. 
that  no  amount  of  Imperial  displeasure  constitutes  an 
argument  against  the  binding  nature  of  the  laws  of  the 
Church  on  those  who  believe  in  her  divine  constitution  ; 
and  that  the  Bishop  of  Antioch  too  clearly  showed  the 
original  cause  of  his  quarrel  with  Cyril  for  any  serious 
weight  to  be  attached  to  his  objections  to  the  Anathema - 
tisms  drawn  up  at  Alexandria.'  Further,  the  Church 
owes  to  St.  Cyril  an  inexpressible  debt  of  gratitude  for 
his  firmness  and  zeal  in  the  defence  of  what  he  clearly 
saw,  and  all  now  see,  to  have  really  involved  the  whole 
question  of  the  world's  redemption.  If  the  child  '  of  two 
or  three  months  old  '  that  lay  in  Mary's  lap  was  not 
literally  Almighty  God,  the  world  was  not  saved  by 
Jesus  Christ.^ 

*  It  is  true  that  he  fixed  on  one  expression  of  Cyril's  (evioais  (pvatKi]) 
and  on  Cyril's  use  of  <^v(ns,  which  could  be  misunderstood,  but  it  is 
clear  that  but  for  a  certain  perversity,  which  led  him  into  his  schismatic 
action  at  Ephesus,  he  would  not  have  misinterpreted  Cyril. 

2  Dr.  Bright  {Waymarlcs,  p.  172)  carries  his  depreciation  of  Cyril  to 
such  a  pitch  that  he  even  allows  the  idea  that  Cyril  had  to  do  with  the 
aubsequent  hardships  of  Nestorius,  not  merely  to  cross  his  mind,  but  to 
inspire  the  following  sentence.     Speaking  of  the  severities  dealt  out  to 


CONCLUSION  116 

The  Church  also  had  in  Celestine,  the  Bishop  of 
Kome,  one  of  whom  she  is  justly  proud,  who  saw,  equally 
with  Cyril,  what  was  involved  in  the  contest,  and 
omitted  no  pains  to  support  the  great  Bishop  of  Alex- 
andria. Before  his  death  Celestine  wrote  one  of  his 
most  touching  letters  to  the  bishops  of  the  Synod, ^  after 
their  dispersion  to  their  homes,  full,  as  all  his  letters 
are,  of  beautiful  applications  of  Holy  Scripture,  and  dis- 
playing the  firmness  of  a  ruler  and  tenderness  of  a 
father.  He  strikes  the  note  of  joy  in  the  opening 
sentence ;  he  then  congratulates  them  on  having  faith- 
fully carried  this  affair  into  execution  '  with  us ' ;  he 
applies  to  himself  the  words  of  the  Psalmist  (Psal.  xxiv.), 
'  The  innocent  and  the  upright  have  adhered  to  me,' 
showing  that  he  conceived  of  the  Synod  as  the  Synod 
conceived  of  itself,  as  the  executor  of  his  own  sentence. 
He  praises  their  choice  of  a  successor  to  Nestorius,  and 
congratulates  them  on  the  emperor's  assent.  He  then 
tells  them  that  they  must  not  stop  here  :  they  must 
induce  the  Emperor  to  rescind  his  decree  about  Nestorius 
being  allowed  to  go  to  Antioch.  He  must  be  removed 
further.     '  Solitude  alone  becomes  such  men.' 

*  We,'  says  the  Pope,  '  are  further  off  than  you  are, 
but  by  solicitude  we  see  the  whole  matter  closer.  The 
care  of  the  blessed  Apostle  Peter  has  the  effect  of 
making  all  present  ;  we  cannot  excuse  ourselves  before 
God  concerning  what  we  know.  .  .  .  We  ought  to  have 

Nestorius  by  the  governor  of  the  Thebaic!,  Dr.  Bright  says  :  '  We  may 
hope  that  he  was  not  seeking  to  gratify  the  primate  of  Egypt.'  Then 
why  suggest  such  an  idea,  for  which  there  is  not  an  iota  of  evidence  ? 
Dr.  Bright  also  in  quoting  Gamier  on  Cyril's  character  {ibid.  p.  145) 
omits  the  words  '  animus  eratexcelsus  erectusque,'  giving  no  intimation 
that  Garnier  had  said  this  in  praise  of  Cyril. 
'  Ep.  Cel.  ad  Syn.  March  15,  a.d.  432. 

I  2 


116        THE  COUNCIL  OF  EPHESUS 

care  for  all  in  general,  but  it  behoves  us  specially  to 
assist  the  Antiochenes,  who  are  besieged  by  pestiferous 
disease.' 

Such  is  the  care  which  he  evinces  for  them,  in 
accordance  with  the  title  accorded  to  him  by  the  Synod, 
viz.  *  our  most  holy  Father,'  and  with  his  own  conception 
of  his  relationship  to  the  Prince  of  the  Apostles.  He  then 
decides  what  shall  be  done  with  respect  to  those  who 
seemed  to  think  with  Nestorius.  Although  the  Synod 
had  passed  sentence  on  them,  '  still  we  also  decide  what 
seems  best.  Many  things  have  to  be  looked  into  in 
such  cases,  which  the  Apostolic  See  has  always  regarded.' 
He  accordingly  orders  that  they  shall  be  dealt  with  in 
the  same  way  as  the  '  Coelestians,'  and  desires  that  the 
same  method  of  treatment  shall  be  observed  in 
regard  to  those  who  have  imagined  that  ecclesiastical 
cases  could  be  removed  to  Christian  princes.  He  then 
instructs  them  how  John  of  Antioch  should  be  dealt 
with  in  case  of  his  correcting  himself. 

The  letter,  considering  all  the  circumstances,  is  a 
very  remarkable  one.  It  is  that  of  a  God-fearing  man 
providing  as  father  for  the  wants  of  his  children.  There 
is  not  a  trace  of  any  consciousness  that  he  is  doing 
anything  but  fulfilling  the  duties  of  an  office  recognised 
by  all ;  and  that  office  is  clearly  in  his  judgment  the 
government  of  the  universal  Church  entrusted  to  him 
as  the  successor  of  Peter.  On  the  same  day  he  wrote 
to  the  Emperor  congratulating  him  on  his  better  mind, 
and  giving  him  some  exquisite  exhortations  as  to  the 
performance  of  his  high  functions.  He  also  wrote  to 
the  clergy  and  people  of  Constantinople,  praising  Cyril 
and  drawing  attention  to  Nestorius's  sleepless  energy. 
But  Kome  (he  adds)  is  not  behindhand  in  watchfulness. 


CONCLUSION  117 

*  The  blessed  Apostle  Peter  did  not  desert  them  when  they 
were  toiling  so  heavily,  for,  when  the  separation  of  such 
an  ulcer  [as  Nestorius]  from  the  ecclesiastical  body 
seemed  advisable  by  reason  of  the  putrid  decay  which 
became  sensible  to  all,  we  offered  soothing  fomentation 
together  with  the  steel.  It  was  not  by  the  swiftness  of 
our  sentence  that  he  became  to  us  as  a  publican  and 
heathen  man.  We  could  not  delay  longer  lest  we  should 
seem  to  run  with  the  thief,  and  to  take  our  portion  with 
the  adulterer  against  faith.'  Celestine  here  treats  his 
own  sentence  and  its  execution  by  the  Council  as  one. 

It  is  difficult,  after  all  we  have  seen,  to  understand 
how  Dr.  Salmon  could  say  that  '  the  only  one  of  the 
great  controversies  in  which  the  Pope  really  did  his  part 
in  teaching  Christians  what  to  believe  was  the  Eu- 
tychian  controversy.'  ^ 

Sixtus  succeeded  Celestine,  and  took  up  the  work  in 
the  same  spirit.  In  the  following  year  he  wrote  to  Cyril, 
praising  him  for  his  magnificent  conduct  and  directing 
what  was  to  be  done  about  the  followers  of  John  of 
Antioch,  and  eventually  wrote  a  most  beautiful  letter  to 
John  himself  after  the  reconciliation  between  him  and 
Cyril,  in  which  he  did  not  spare  the  bishop  for  his  past 
conduct,  although  he  acquitted  him  of  any  heretical 
teaching.  He  summed  up  the  whole  matter,  saying, 
*  You  have  learned  by  experience  what  it  is  to  think 
with  us.'  ^ 

From  all  that  has  gone  before,  we  may  deduce  the 
following  conclusions  as  to  Church  principles  in  a.d.  431. 
1.  The  Bishop  of  Kome  held  the  Primacy  in   the 
Church  as  the  successor  of  Peter,  i.e.  by  Divine  insti- 
tution. 

'  Infallibility  of  the  Church,  p.  426,  2nd  edition.        ^  Mansi,  v.  379. 


118        THE  COUNCIL  OF  EPHESUS 

2.  This  Primacy  of  the  Bishop  of  Kome  involved : 

(a)  the  right  to  depose  a  Bishop  of  Constanti- 
nople ; 

(^)  the  right  to  determine  with  authority 
whether  or  no  the  said  bishop  had  contra- 
dicted the  common  faith  of  the  Church. 

3.  The  bishops  of  an  (Ecumenical  Council  exercised 
a  real  right  of  judgment,  but  in  subordination  to  the 
defining  power  of  the  Bishop  of  Eome. 

4.  There  were  certain  '  greater  sees  '  in  the  Church 
over  which  only  an  (Ecumenical  Council  (which  included 
the  Bishop  of  Eome),  or  the  Bishop  of  Eome  himself, 
had  jurisdiction. 

5.  The  denial  that  Mary  was  the  Mother  of  God 
constitutes  an  offence  against  the  faith  of  the  Church. 

6.  The  meaning  of  this  term  Ssotokos  (Mother  of 
God)  is  that  there  is  but  one  Person,  although  two 
distinct  Natures,  in  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ. 

7.  It  is  not  enough  for  Christians  to  agree  to  a 
formula  which  they  interpret  in  a  different  way.  It  is 
not  enough  to  recite  the  Nicene  Creed ;  but  it  is  necessary 
for  a  teacher  in  the  Church  to  abjure  the  heresies  which 
wrongly  interpret  that  Creed.  In  her  guardianship  of 
the  faith  the  Church  eschewed  the  principle  of  compre- 
hension in  regard  to  matters  on  which  she  had  spoken. 

8.  The  Church  is  a  living  body  that  can  speak,  and 
propose  with  authority  fresh  definitions  to  guard  the  old 
truths. 

9.  The  Church  is  one  in  the  sense  that  she  is  under 
one  form  of  government,  and  her  several  parts  are 
visibly  united.  Visible  union  is  not  for  her  a  matter  of 
hope  and  aim,  but  a  necessity  of  her  life. 


Part  II 
THE  LATEOCmiUM  oe  '  EOBBER-SYNOD  ' 


Chapter     I.  The  heretical  Archimandrite,  p.  121 

II.  Papal  Intervention,  p.  133 

III.  The  Acquittal  of  Eutyches,  p.  150 

IV.  The  Deposition  of  Flavian,  p.  161 
V.  Flavian's  Appeal  to  Kome,  p.  167 

VI.  Leo  proposes,  Theodosius  refuses,  a  Council,  p.  181 


PART  II 


CHAPTEE  I 

THE    HERETICAL    ARCHIMANDRITE 

The  throne  of  Peter  was  now  occupied  by  one  of  those 
majestic  figures  which  occasionally  dominate  a  whole 
period.  His  name  was  Leo  :  and  well  did  he  merit  his 
name,  and  rightly  has  posterity  called  him  '  Great.'  The 
Council  of  Chalcedon  called  him  the  '  wonderful '  Leo, 
and  again  spoke  of  his  zeal  as  equal  to  that  of  the  Apostle 
Peter.  The  Oriental  bishops  in  their  letter  to  Pope 
Symmachus  speak  of  Leo  as  '  among  the  Saints ' ; 
Facundus,  of  his  '  weight '  and  '  constancy  ' ;  Saint 
Maximus,  the  Greek  theologian,  of  his  strong-hearted- 
ness  and  great  sanctity  ;  Nicolas  L,  of  his  having  saved 
the  Christian  faith;  Photius,  of  his  sanctity,  great 
renown,  and  zeal  in  piety  and  religion  ;  and  the  Greek 
Menology,  of  his  virtue,  wisdom,  and  sanctity,  and  of  his 
having  left  conspicuous  monuments  of  his  virtue,  but 
especially  of  his  witness  to  the  true  faith. 

The  sum  and  substance  of  Christianity  was  again  at 
stake ;  the  true  Glory  of  its  Founder  was  again  in 
question  under  another  form,  and  Leo  the  Great  was  the 
instrument    chosen    by    the    Divine   Founder    of    the 


122  TFIE   ROBBER-SYNOD 

Christian  Church  to  vindicate  the  truth  of  His  Incarna- 
tion. 

But  it  was  as  occupying  the  throne  of  Peter  that  St. 
Leo  achieved  the  triumph  of  Chalcedon.  More  than  once 
had  he  quoted  the  words  of  Christ,  '  I  have  prayed  for 
thee,  that  thy  faith  fail  not,'  as  the  source  of  his  con- 
fidence, and  the  words  '  confirm  thy  brethren  '  as  the 
rule  of  his  conduct.^  And  in  that  confidence  he  acted 
throughout  his  troubled  reign,  as  he  guided  Patriarchs, 
Bishops,  Emperor  and  Empress,  through  the  maze  of 
heretical  subtleties.  He  said  nothing  different  from  what 
others  had  said  before  him  as  to  the  prerogatives  of  his 
see ;  but  the  circumstances  under  which  he  had  to  act 
developed  a  fuller  apprehension  of  the  truth  that  St. 
Peter  was  the  appointed  '  confirmer  of  the  brethren  '  in 
the  matter  of  faith.  It  was  in  the  counsels  of  Divine 
Providence  that  the  whole  force  of  the  '  Petrine  Privi- 
lege '  should  be  felt  on  a  large  scale  and  under  the 
pressure  of  unparalleled  needs,  so  that  the  Church  might 
realise  more  fully  where  her  strength   lay  and  never 

*  St.  Leo  taught  that  Peter  was  placed  over  all  the  Apostles  :  '  De 
toto  mundo  unus  Petrus  eligitur,  qui  et  universarum  gentium  vocationi 
et  omnibus  Apostolis  cunctisque  Ecclesise  patribus  prseponatur,  ut  .  .  . 
omnes  proprie  regat  Petrus,  quos  prineipaliter  regit  et  Christus,'  And 
quoting  the  words  in  St.  Luke,  he  says  '  pro  fide  Petri  proprie  suppli- 
catur,  tanquam  aliorum  status  certior  sit  f  uturus,  si  mens  Principis  victa 
non  f uerit.  In  Petro  ergo  omnium  fortitude  munitur,  et  divinse  gratiaa 
ita  ordinatur  auxilium,  ut  firmitas,  quss  per  Christum  Petro  tribuitur, 
per  Petrum  apostolis  conferatur.'  St.  Leo  also  taught  that  the  preroga- 
tive of  Peter  descended  to  his  See  :  '  si  quid  etiam  nostris  temporibus 
recte  per  nos  agitur,  recteque  disponitur,  illius  operibus,  illius  sit  guber- 
naculis  deputandum  cui  dictum  est :  et  iu  conversus  confirma  fratres 
tiios  '  {Sermo  iv.).  The  references  to  the  writings  of  St.  Leo  are  to  his 
Sermons  and  Letters  in  the  Ballerinis'  edition,  Leoiiis  Magni  0;px^.  vol.  i. 
Venice,  1753. 


EUTYCHES  123 

suffer  her  locks  to  be  shorn.  But  throughout  his 
emphatic  exercise  of  his  prerogative  as  the  guardian  of 
the  Nicene  Faith  and  of  the  Nicene  canons,  not  a  note 
of  surprise,  as  at  any  novel  claim,  was  heard.  Heretics 
or  politicians  might  endeavour  to  evade  the  force  of  that 
prerogative  or  to  use  it  in  their  own  behalf,  but  as  to 
the  prerogative  itself  no  challenge  was  ever  made.  For, 
as  had  been  said  at  the  Council  of  Ephesus  without 
challenge,  '  It  is  doubtful  to  none  and  has  been  known 
to  all  ages,  that  the  blessed  Apostle  Peter,  the  head  and 
prince  of  the  Apostles,  received  from  the  Saviour  of  the 
human  race  the  keys  of  the  kingdom,  and  that  he  lives 
and  exercises  rule  in  his  successors.' 

But  to  proceed  to  the  actual  history.  The  utterances 
of  a  '  foolish  old  man,'  as  St.  Leo  called  him,  erring  more 
from  stupidity  than  the  subtlety  that  misled  Nestorius, 
were  the  occasion  of  the  storm  that  now  burst  with 
terrific  suddenness  over  the  Church— a  foolish  old  man, 
who  boasted  that  he  had  kept  his  vow  of  continency  in 
the  monastic  life,  and  who  had  all  that  peculiar  influence 
which  is  invariably  exercised  for  good  or  evil  by  men  of 
recognised  austerity.  Such  was  the  Constantinopolitan 
Archimandrite,  Eutyches. 

To  understand  the  situation  it  will  be  necessary  to 
revert  briefly  to  the  events  immediately  following  the 
victory  of  Cyril  over  Nestorius.  John  of  Antioch,  who 
had  played  such  a  bad  part  in  the  Council  of  Ephesus, 
after  two  years  of  resistance  accepted  the  decrees  of  that 
Council  through  the  joint  persuasion,  or  pressure,  of  the 
Emperor  and  the  Pope.  And  having  once  done  so,  he 
became  an  influence  for  good  throughout  the  East. 
About  five  years  after  his  submission  and  reconciliation, 
he  wrote  to  Proclus,  the  Archbishop  of  Constantinople, 


124  THE  EOBBER-SYNOD 

saying  that  the  whole  East  was  quiet  and  that  they  were 
enjoying  a  breathing-time  from  the  unforeseen  evils 
which  the  world  had  experienced  through  '  the  accursed 
Nestorius.'  ^ 

But  many  elements  of  mischief  were  at  work.     The 
partisans  of  Nestorius,  of  Diodorus,  and  of  Theodore  of 
Mopsuestia,  were  numerous  and   excited.     Monks  and 
clerics  might  be  heard  in  the  streets  of  Alexandria  and 
Constantinople  wrangling  over  the  rightness  or  wrong- 
ness  of  Nestorius's  condemnation  and  Cyril's  Anathema- 
tisms.     But  so   long   as   John   of   Antioch,  Cyril,  and 
Proclus  lived,  these  elements  of  disturbance  were  kept  in 
check.     Each,   however,  of  these  sees   changed   hands 
within    the    decade.     First,    Cyril    was    succeeded    at 
Alexandria,  in  a.d.  444,  by  his  nephew  and  archdeacon, 
Dioscorus,  a  man  of  ungovernable  ambition  and  violent 
temper,   and   accused    by    some   of    his   clergy   of    an 
altogether  immoral  life.     He  has  been  called  '  the  Attila 
of  the  Eastern   Church.'  ^     Next,  John  of  Antioch  had 
been  succeeded  two  years  before  by  his  nephew  Domnus, 
a  man  of  weak  character,  whose  career  proved  to  be 
nothing  less  than  a  tragedy.     He  had  experienced  a  call 
to  the  solitary  life.     Fired,  however,  with  the  idea  of 
recalling  his  uncle  from  his  Nestorian  sympathies,  he 
had  left  his  cell,  contrary  to  the  advice  of  the  Abbot 
Euthymius,  who  predicted  the  misfortunes  that  actually 
befel   him.     At   Antioch   he  now   won  his  way  to  the 
episcopal   throne    as   successor  of   Saint  Peter  in  the 


»  Mansi,  v.  974. 

'^  For  Dioscorus's  character  c/.  Theophanes,  Chronogr.  ad  annum  439, 
and  Nicephorus,  H.  E.  xiv.  47 ;  Liberatus,  Brev,  c.  10.  Theodoret 
(Ep.  60)  gives  him  a  good  character  before  his  elevation.  He  appears 
to  have  fearfully  deteriorated. 


EUTYCHES  126 

third  See  of  Christendom.  A  deadly  animosity  sprang 
up  between  him  and  Dioscorus.  He  had  allowed  Proclus 
of  Constantinople  to  take  precedence  of  him  at  a  Synod, 
and  had  thus  seemed  to  countenance  the  provision  of 
the  third  canon  of  381,  a  mortal  offence  in  the  eyes  of 
Dioscorus.^  The  latter  had  also  interfered  in  the 
diocese  of  Antioch,  and  had  requested  Domnus  to 
publish  a  letter  of  his,  which  Domnus  refused  to  do, 
grounding  his  action  on  the  second  canon  of  381. 

But  thirdly,  in  a.d.  447  the  see  of  Constantinople 
itself  became  vacant.  To  the  disappointment  of  the 
Archimandrite,  Eutyches,  who  was  connected  by  birth 
and  friendship  with  the  Emperor's  favourite  chamber- 
lain, Chrysaphius,  and  who  is  said  by  Theophanes  and 
Nicephorus  to  have  looked  forward  to  the  post  of  arch- 
bishop, Flavian  was  appointed  to  the  see.  And,  more- 
over, according  to  Evagrius,  Flavian  on  his  appointment 
sent  Chrysaphius  some  sacred  vessels  instead  of  the 
gold  coin  for  which  the  covetous  chamberlain  looked  on 
such  occasions. 2  And  again,  Flavian  was  a  friend  of 
Domnus.  Dioscorus  omitted  to  send  the  usual  letters  to 
Flavian  on  his  appointment.^ 

It  will  be  seen  from  all  this  that  it  w^ould  require  but 
a  spark  to  produce  any  amount  of  dissension  between  the 
three  sees  of  Alexandria,  Antioch,  and  Constantinople, 

'  Cf .  Theodoret,  Ep.  86.  This  letter  is  now  recognised  as  written  by 
Domnus,  not  by  Theodoret.  The  Syriac  version  differs  slightly; 
probably  it  was  a  Synodal  letter,  and  consequently  varied  slightly 
according  to  the  bishop  to  whom  in  each  case  it  was  sent.  Cf.  Actes 
du  Brigandage  d'Ephise,  par  M.  I'Abbe  Martin,  Amiens,  1874,  pp.  139- 
143. 

2  Evagrius,  H.  E.  ii.  )8. 

3  We  learn  this  from  the  recently  discovered  letter  of  Flavian  to 
Leo.     Cf.  p.  173. 


126  THE   ROBBER-SYNOD 

and  that  there  is  no  need,  as  there  is  no  justification  in 
the  record,  for  bringing  in  the  West  to  explain  the 
troubles  that  now  arose. ^ 

Further,  we  are  told  by  the  historian  Facundus  that 
Domnus  of  Antioch  was  the  first  to  denounce  Eutyches 
to  Theodosius.'^ 

To  complete  the  picture,  we  must  remember  that 
Dioscorus  about  the  same  time  picked  a  quarrel  with 
Theodoret,  the  historian,  and  Bishop  of  Cyrrhos,  and 
the  quondam  critic  of  Cyril's  Anathematisms.  Dioscorus 
looked  upon  himself  as  the  hereditary  champion  of  the 
great  Bishop  of  Alexandria,  his  uncle  and  predecessor, 
Cyril,  and  he  wrote  to  Domnus  complaining  of  Theo- 
doret, whose  see  was  in  the  '  Diocese  '  (Patriarchate)  of 
Antioch,  on  account  of  certain  reports  as  to  Nestorian 
tendencies  having  appeared  in  Theodoret's  teaching 
while  on  a  visit  to  Antioch.  Theodoret  defended  him- 
self, but  in  vain  so  far  as  Dioscorus  was  concerned. 
About  the  same  time  ^  Domnus  took  a  step  calculated 
still  further  to  inflame  the  minds  of  those  who  were 
making  anti-Nestorianism  their  one  cry.  There  was 
one  prominent  figure  among  the  lay  attendants  at  the 
Council  of  Ephesus,  the  Count  Irenaeus,  who  had  been 
commissioned  by  the  Emperor  to  look  after  the  bishops 
assembled  at  the  Council  in  temporal  matters.  Being 
strongly  attached  to  Nestorius,  he  had  proved  a  terrible 
scourge  to  the  orthodox  bishops.     He  had  made  their 

'  It  will  be  seen  from  the  whole  narrative  that  Harnack's  endeavour 
to  account  for  the  turn  that  the  events  took  by  attributing  political 
motives  to  Leo,  is  simply  without  foundation  in  the  record — indeed,  is 
contradicted  by  it. 

*  Pro  Trium  Defensione  Cajntulorum,  Lib.  viii.  cap.  5. 

'  The  chronology  is  difficult  to  settle.  I  have  followed  the  Abb6 
Martin,  Le  Pseudo-Synode,  Paris,  1875. 


EUTYCHES  127 

stay  in  Ephesus  almost  intolerable,  and  had  afterwards 
induced  the  Court  party  to  pronounce  against  Cyril. 
This  Imperial  officer  had  now  professed  to  be  converted 
to  the  orthodox  side  and  sought  the  priesthood  ;  and 
Domnus  had  consecrated  him  Bishop  of  Tyre.^  The 
Monophysites,  not  believing  in  Irenaeus's  conversion, 
resented  the  appointment,  and  the  Emperor  Theodosius, 
whose  ear  they  had  gained,  when  he  renewed  his  edicts 
against  the  Nestorians,  deposed  Irenaeus,  on  the  ground 
that  he  was  a  bigamist. 

I  have  used  the  word  Monophysite  ^  by  way  of  antici- 
pation. The  champions  of  Cyril  as  against  Nestorius 
had  unfortunately  taken  as  their  watchword  Cyril's 
declaration  that  there  is  but  '  one  incarnate  <j)vac9  '  in 
our  Divine  Lord,  by  which  he  meant  '  one  Person.'  But 
the  word  (pvacs  meant  literally  'nature,'  and  the 
opponents  of  Nestorianism  (which  denied  the  single 
Personality  in  our  Incarnate  Lord),  now  losing  their 
balance,  spoke  of  there  being  not  merely  one  Person,  but 
*  one  Nature '  in  His  Incarnate  Being,  due  to  a  certain 
mixture  or  confusion  of  the  Divine  and  human  natures. 

The  Emperor,  having  deposed  Irenaeus,  proceeded  a 
step  further  and  confined  Theodoret  to  his  diocese.  Thus 
the  situation  was  critical.  Domnus  was  left  without  his 
chief  adviser,  except  so  far  as  Theodoret  could  support 
him  by  his  letters.  He  was  moreover  induced  to  cancel 
the  appointment  of  Irenseus  to  the  bishopric  of  T^^-e  and 
to  consecrate  Photius  in  his  stead.  The  Monophysites 
were  thus  carrying  all  before  them. 

At  this  juncture  (a.d.  448)  a  Synod  was  assembled  at 
Constantinople  under  its  archbishop,  Flavian,  to  decide  a 

'  Mansi,  v.  939. 

2  I.e.  maintaining  '  one  nature,'  after  the  Incarnation. 


128  THE   ROBBER-SYNOD 

difference  between  the  metropolitan  of  Sardis  and  two  of 
his  suffragans.  At  this  Synod,  to  the  astonishment  of 
many,  Flavian  himself  included,  Eusebius  of  Dorylaeum 
stepped  forward  and  accused  his  quondam  friend,  the 
great  Archimandrite  Eutyches,  of  heresy.^  Cicero's  burst 
in  the  opening  of  his  oration  against  Catiline  in  the 
Eoman  Senate,  '  How  long,  I  pray  thee,  0  Catiline,  will 
you  abuse  our  patience  ?  '  did  not  more  take  the  assem- 
bly by  surprise  than  this  sudden  accusation  on  the  part  of 
Eusebius,  who  had  been  the  great  opponent  of  Nestorius.^ 
He  accused  Eutyches  of  teaching  and  disseminating  a 
heresy  opposed  to  that  of  Nestorius,  but  a  heresy  none  the 
less.  He  accused  him  of  teaching  contrary  to  Cyril's 
second  letter  to  Nestorius,  which,  as  was  afterwards  ex- 
plained, taught  the  co-existence  of  two  Natures  in  our 
Incarnate  Lord's  single  divine  Personality.  He  accused 
him  of  renewing  the  heresy  of  Apollinarius,  who  made 
the  human  nature  of  our  Lord  an  unreality.  After 
being  summoned  and  refusing  to  attend  the  Synod, 
Eutyches  made  his  appearance,  and  after  much  fencing 
threw  off  all  disguise  (as  Flavian  explained  in  his  letter 
to  Leo),  and  said  that  '  we  ought  not  to  confess  that  our 
Lord  subsisted  in  two  Natures  after  becoming  man,'  and 
that  '  the  Body  of  our  Lord,  although  born  of  the  Virgin, 
who  is  consubstantial  with  us,  is  not  itself  consubstantial 
with  us.'  In  this,  says  St.  Flavian,  '  Eutyches  ran 
counter  to  all  the  expositions  of  the  holy  Fathers.'  ^ 
Eutyches  eventually  withdrew  the  latter  statement,  but 
clung  to  the  former.  He  was  degraded  from  his 
ecclesiastical  rank  and  deprived  of  the  superintendence  ■* 


'  Mansi,  vi.  652.  -  Ibid.  653.  =«  Leon.  Ep.  22. 

*  rov  TTpoKTrivai,   Mansi,  vi.   748  and  820.     In   the  restoration   of 


EUTYCHES  129 

of  his  monastery.  But  the  Synod  did  not  go  on  to 
expressly  anathematise  his  teaching. 

Eutyches  afterwards  maintained  that  he  had  made  a 
formal  appeal  at  this  Synod ;  but  he  was  not  consistent 
in  his  statements  as  to  the  authority  to  which  he  pro- 
fessed to  have  appealed.  It  is  agreed  on  all  hands  that 
he  told  a  falsehood  in  saying  that  he  made  any  formal 
appeal  at  the  Sy^iod  itself.  The  patrician  Florentius 
deposed  at  a  subsequent  Synod,  in  449,  that  Eutyches 
said  to  him  in  a  soft  low  voice  ^  just  as  the  Synod  of  448 
broke  up,  that  he  appealed  to  the  separate  Synods  of 
Eome,  Egypt,  and  Jerusalem.  The  monk  Constantine 
said  (falsely)  that  Eutyches  had  appealed  to  the  holy 
Synods  of  the  Bishop  of  Eome  and  Alexandria,  and 
Jerusalem  and  Thessalonica,  while  the  sentence  was 
being  read. 

His  reasons  for  mentioning  these  particular  bishops 
are  obvious.  The  Bishop  of  Piome  could  not  be  passed 
over,  and  Eutyches  had  lately  written  to  Leo  about  what 
he  considered  a  recrudescence  of  Nestorianism,  and  had 
received  a  gracious  answer.  He  hoped  to  deceive  Leo 
now,  and  Anastasius  of  Thessalonica  as  Papal  Vicar  in 
Eastern  Illyricum  might  be  expected  to  follow  suit. 
The  Bishop  of  Jerusalem,  as  the  event  only  too  fully 
proved,  was  not  likely  to  side  with  the  opponents  of 
Eutyches,  viz.  the  Bishops  of  Antioch  and  Constantinople. 
Eutyches  carefully  omitted  the  name  of  the  Bishop  of 
Antioch.  His  pretended  appeal,  therefore,  was  to  the 
synodical  decisions  of  these  selected  prelates.  At  the 
Latrocinium  he  spoke  of  having  appealed  to  the  Synod 

Eutyches,  his  position  is  called  Tfjyef^oi^ia  and  apxv  indifferently,  the  two 
words  being  used  as  synonyms ;   cp.  836  and  801. 
'  irpdws,  Mansi,  vi.  817. 

K 


130  THE   ROBBER-SYNOD 

itself,  but  he  presently  explained  this  by  saying  that  it 
was  to  certain  archbishops.  Flavian,  he  said,  *  ought 
to  have  written  before  all  things  to  the  archbishops  to 
whom  he  [Eutyches]  appealed.'  It  has  been  erroneously 
imagined  that  Eutyches  professed  to  have  appealed  in 
terms  to  a  General  Council.^  But  he  never  once  uses 
the  expression,  and  it  is  certain  that  he  did  not  mean  to 
have  Domnus,  of  Antioch,  for  one  of  his  judges,  without 
whom  (if  intentionally  omitted)  a  Council  could  not  be 
General  in  the  full  sense  of  the  term. 

He  probably  wrote  letters  to  every  quarter  whence 
help  might  come.  His  letters,  however,  with  one  excep- 
tion, are  not  extant,  and  we  can  surmise  nothing  as  to 
their  contents,  except,  of  course,  that  he  asked  them  to 
look  into  his  case  and  to  condemn  Flavian's  decision.^ 
But  what  is  certain  is  that  Eutyches  wrote  to  Eome 
sending  the  Pope,  together  with  Eusebius's  accusation 
and  some  testimonies  (mostly  supposititious)  to  himself, 
two  documents  :  one  a  profession  of  faith,  and  the  other 
a  notice  of  appeal  to  Eome  which  he  pretended  to  have 
handed   in   at   the   Synod   of   Constantinople,  a  notice 

'  Dr.  Bright  imagines  this.  But  he  has  probably  been  misled  by  the 
wrong  reading  in  the  Latin  version  of  the  Council  under  Dioscorus,  in- 
cluded in  the  Acts  of  Chalcedon.  It  runs  thus:  '  Cum  magis  oportuerit 
ante  omnibus  pontificibus  scribere,  quos  et  appellaveram,'  '  when  he 
[Flavian]  ought  first  to  have  written  to  all  the  Pontiffs  to  whom  also  I 
had  appealed.'  But  the  true  reading  is  *  when  he  [Flavian]  ought 
rather,  before  all  things,  to  have  written  to  the  archbishops  to 
whom  also  I  appealed  : '  o^iiKwv  irph  irdvTuv  toIs  apxi^p^va-iv  eVto-Terxat 
K.  T.  X.     Mansi,  vi.  641. 

2  Liberatus  (Brev.  cap.  12)  says  that  Eutyches  wrote  to  Dioscorus  in 
this  sense,  which  might  be  taken  as  a  matter  of  course.  Dr.  Bright 
{Roman  See,  p.  262)  refers  to  Mansi,  vi.  820.  But  there  is  not  a  word 
in  that  passage  about  his  having  written  to  Dioscorus.  He  only  professes 
there  to  defer  to  the  Bishops  of  Eome  and  Alexandria  as  fathers. 


EUTYCHES  131 

which  contained  a  promise,  alleged  to  have  been  made  to 
the  Synod,  to  follow  the  Papal  decision  in  every  loay. 
He  asked  St.  Leo  that  he  might  suffer  no  prejudice 
pending  the  appeal,  and  begged  for  a  decision  on  the 
matter  of  faith.  It  is  absurd  to  suppose  that  he  wrote 
to  anyone  else  in  the  same  way.^ 

But  his  statement  in  his  letter  to  Leo,  that  he  had 
appealed  to  him  in  the  Synod  at  Constantinople,  implies 
that  the  bishops  in  the  East  held  that  such  an  appeal  if 
formally  made  during  a  Synod  must  have  the  effect  of 
suspending  their  sentence.  This  was  the  point  of  the 
statement,  viz.  to  stay  the  proceedings  at  Constantinople. 
He  knew  that  the  Pope  had  only  to  suppose  that  an 
appeal  had  been  lodged  at  the  Synod  and  he  would  be 
able  to  enforce  a  suspension  of  the  sentence.^ 

•  '  Omnibus  modis  me  secuturum  qua3  probassetis '  {Leon.  Ep.  21,  c.  i.). 
Dr.  Bright  {Roman  See,  p.  173)  thus  pretends  to  summarise  what  I  said 
in  the  first  edition  of  The  Primitive  Church  and  the  See  of  Peter  :  '  We 
know  nothing,  he  [Dr.  Eivingion]  argues,  of  any  letter  from  Eutyches, 
except  the  one  to  Leo;  therefore,  we  may  practically  treat  the  applica- 
tion to  Leo  as  standing  alone.'  Instead  of  this,  I  had  said  that 
Eutyches  '  probably  wrote  letters  to  every  quarter  whence  help  might 
come  '  (1st  ed.  p  366).  And  I  mentioned  some  in  particular.  Conse- 
quently there  is  no  suggestion  that  the  '  application '  to  Leo  '  stood 
alone,'  in  the  sense  that  no  other  applications  were  made  to  anyone. 
But  I  suggested  that  the  character  of  Eutyches's  letter  to  Leo  was 
unique ;  and  that  much  is  certain.  A  person  in  his  senses  could  not 
write  to  more  than  one  archbishop  as  he  did  to  Leo,  promising  to  obey 
his  judgment.  Dr.  Bright  proceeds  :  '  This  is  a  short  and  easy  method, 
indeed ;  but  it  happens  that  Eutyches,  in  449,  charged  Flavian  with 
ignoring  his  appeal  to  a  General  Council.'  Now  Dr.  Bright  himself 
says  '  We  may  take  it  as  certain  that  he  [Eutyches]  made  no  formal 
appeal  whatever  during  the  Council.'  How,  then,  can  what  Eutyches 
said,  and  falsely  said,  a  year  afterwards  affect  what  he  did  in  448  ? 
How  could  his  falsehood  in  449  affect  the  question  of  his  '  application 
to  Leo '  standing  alone,  in  the  sense  of  being  unique,  in  448  ? 

-  Cf.  Ballerini,  Leon.  0pp.  T.  ii.  '  De  Causa  Eutyehis.' 

K  2 


132  THE  EOBBER-SYNOD 

I  have  said  that  Eutyches  made  application  in  other 
quarters,  though  necessarily  of  a  different  character, 
since  he  could  not  have  promised  to  obey  others  as  he  did 
promise  Leo.  His  object  was  clearly  to  enlist  anyone 
that  he  could  in  his  favour,  and  accordingly  he  wrote  to 
a  bishop  known  to  have  special  influence  with  the 
Emperor  Valentinian,  viz.  St.  Peter  Chrysologus,  Bishop 
of  Eavenna.  This  saintly  archbishop,  however,  replied 
that  he  could  not  intervene  in  such  a  matter  ^  without 
the  leave  of  the  Bishop  of  Kome.  He  appears  not  to 
have  learnt  from  Eutyches  anything  about  the  Synod  of 
Constantinople,  and  he  knew  nothing  about  the  dogmatic 
epistle  of  Leo.^  He  accordingly  advises  Eutyches  what 
to  do.  Eutyches  had  obviously  said  nothing  about  a 
General  Council,  but  simply  asked  St.  Peter  Chrysologus 
for  his  judgment  on  the  matter  of  faith.  We  are 
indebted  to  an  important  discovery  of  an  old  copy 
(dating  between  a.d.  453  and  455,  and  therefore  strictly 
contemporary)  of  St.  Peter's  letter  in  Greek,  for  the 
whole  text  of  the  saint's  words.  He  advises  Eutyches  to 
*  attend  obediently  to  whatever  is  written  from  the  most 
blessed  Pope  of  the  city  of  Eome,  because  blessed  Peter, 
who  both  lives  and  presides  in  his  own  see,  gives  to 
those  who  seek  it  the  truth  of  the  faith.'  ^ 


>  TTto-rews  aiTias,  cases  concerning  faith  {Leonis  Ep.  25). 
^  S.  Leonis  Magni  0pp.  Tom.  I.  ed.  Ballerini.     Admonitio  in  Ep. 
25,  §  6. 

''  Ibid.  Ep.  25. 


CHAPTEE   II 

PAPAL    INTERVENTION 

Archbishop  Flavian  also  had  written  to  St.  Leo  imme- 
diately after  Eutyches's  condemnation  at  Constantinople, 
sending  him  the  Acts  of  the  Synod.  He  notified,  indeed, 
the  condemnation  of  Eutyches  to  other  bishops,  but  he 
sent  the  Acts  of  the  Synod  to  Leo,  a  measure  which 
implied  a  formal  appeal  to  a  superior  court.  His  letter, 
however,  did  not  arrive  in  due  time,  whether  owing,  as 
is  supposed,  to  the  management  of  Eutyches  and  his 
friends,  it  is  impossible  to  say.  ^Accordingly  St.  Leo,  on 
receiving  Eutyches's  letter,  wrote  at  once  to  the  Emperor 
and  Flavian.  The  letters  are  both  of  them  of  the  highest 
importance  as  showing  what  the  Pope  could  assume  as 
admitted  by  the  Emperor  of  the  East  and  the  Archbishop 
of  Constantinople,  as  to  the  right  of  a  Bishop  of  Eome  to 
pass  judgment  on  a  matter  of  faith. 

The  origin  of  his  writing  to  the  Emperor  was  this. 
Eutyches  had  set  to  work  through  his  friend  and  rela- 
tive Chrysaphius,  the  Emperor's  favourite  chamberlain, 
to  gain  the  help  of  the  Imperial  power  for  the  reversal  of 
of  his  condemnation.  Pulcheria  had,  according  to 
Nicephorus,  been  removed  from  the  Court  and  had 
retired  temporarily  to  a  convent.  By  this  means  the 
one  influence  over  Theodosius  in  behalf  of  orthodoxy  was 


134  THE   ROBBER-SYNOD 

out  of  the  way,  and  the  weak  Emperor  fell  under  the 
complete  sway  of  Chrysaphius,  or,  which  was  the  same 
thing,  of  Eutyches  himself.  His  Majesty  accordingly 
wrote  to  Eome  on  behalf  of  Eutyches.^ 

Leo,  however,  tells  the  Emperor  that  he  needs  to 
hear  from  Archbishop  Flavian  before  he  gives  judgment.^ 
He  blames  Flavian  to  the  Emperor  for  not  having  sent 
the  Acts  of  the  Synod  to  Rome  as  he  ought  to  have  been 
the  first  to  do.^  The  Pope  was  not  aware  that  Flavian 
had,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  at  once  despatched  the  Acts,  but 
that  from  some  mishap  they  had  been  delayed.  If  the 
Emperor  and  Eutyches  and  Chrysaphius  were  acting  in 
concert  to  get  judgment  from  Rome  before  the  cause 
was  properly  heard,  they  were  much  deceived  in  their 
estimate  of  Leo.  For  the  latter  simply  told  the  Emperor 
that  he  w^as  displeased  that  Flavian  had  not  written,  and 
that  he  had  written  to  him  to  say  so  and  felt  sure  that 
after  this  '  admonition '  Flavian  would  send  a  report  of 
all  the  proceedings,  '  so  that  judgment  may  be  passed  in 
accordance  with  evangelical  and  Apostolical  teaching.'  ^ 
To  Flavian  the  Pope  wrote  in  terms  of  censure  for  not 
having  done  his  duty,  since  he  had  already  heard  from 
the  Emperor,  and  also  from  Eutyches,  and  the  latter 
had  said  that  he  '  had  given  in  a  notice  of  appeal  at  the 
time  of  the  judgment  itself.'  The  failure,  therefore, 
with  which  Leo  reproached  Flavian  was  not  merely  that 
he  had  not  written  quickly  on  an  important  matter,  but 
that  he  had  not  respected  Eutyches's  appeal  to  Rome. 
He  therefore  desires  Flavian  to  send  an  account  of  the 

*  Leonis  Ep.  24  (Ball.). 

-  '  Ut  possit  congrue  de  bene  cognitis  judicari.' 

^  '  Cum  studere  debuerit  primitus  nobis  cuncta  reserare.' 

*  Ep.  24. 


PAPAL   INTERVENTION  135 

proceedings  and  to  hold  everything  over  until  he  [Leo] 
has  cognisance  of  the  matter.^ 

It  is  impossible  not  to  see  in  these  letters  plain  evi- 
dence of  the  recognised  position  of  the  See  of  Rome  as 
the  court  of  appeal  from  distant  sees  in  the  East.  It 
was  not  Valentinian,  but  Theodosius,  to  whom  St.  Leo 
thus  wrote,  and  it  was  of  no  less  a  personage  than  the 
Archbishop  of  Constantinople  that  he  thus  complained. 
He  refuses  to  listen  to  the  application  of  the  Emperor, 
but  requires  the  formalities  of  a  judicial  procedure  to  be 
complied  with,  so  that  '  judgment  may  be  passed  in  ac- 
cordance with  the  evangelical  and  Apostolical  teaching.'  ^ 
No  mere  patriarch  would  thus  write  to  an  Emperor  con- 
cerning a  matter  beyond  the  limits  of  his  own  patri- 
archate. 

This  was  in  February  a.d.  449.  The  next  step  on 
the  part  of  Eutyches  was  in  imitation  of  Nestorius.  He 
made  for  a  General  Council,  without  waiting  for  a  reply 
from  Leo,  whose  judgment  he  had  solemnly  promised  to 
obey.  His  friend  and  relative,  Chrysaphius,  turned  at 
once  to  Alexandria,  and  enlisted  the  ambition  of  Dios- 
corus  in  the  strife,  promising  him  all  his  own  influ- 
ence at  Court  (which  was  immense)  in  furtherance  of 
Dioscorus's  well-known  aims  at  supremacy  in  the  East, 
if  only  he  would  espouse  the  cause  of  Eutyches  as 
against  Flavian.  Dioscorus  seized  his  opportunity,  and 
at   once   wrote   to   the   Emperor  suggesting  a  General 

•  Ep.23:  '  usque  ad  nostram  notitiam  cuncta  deferri.'  Dr.  Bright's 
account  of  this  letter  is  inadequate.  He  says  that  Leo  '  naturally  thought 
that  Flavian  "  ought  to  have  written  "  to  him  as  soon  as  Eutyches  did  ' 
(Roman  See,  p.  173).  But  why  '  naturally  '  ?  Leo  says,  because  of  the 
supposed  appeal — the  point  which  Dr.  Bright  ignores. 

-  Ep.  24  :  '  ut  in  lucem  ductis  his  qua  adhuc  videntur  occulta,  id  quod 
evangelicae  et  apostolicae  doctrinse  convenit,  judicetur.' 


136  THE   ROBBER-SYNOD 

Council.  In  this  suggestion  there  was  not  as  yet  formal 
opposition  to  the  idea  of  a  Papal  judgment,  since  it  is 
not  likely  that  Chrysaphius  or  Eutyches  told  Dioscorus 
of  the  appeal  to  Eome.  Neither  could  the  Emperor 
have  received  the  Pope's  reply,  or  have  divined  its  con- 
tents. Not  that,  as  events  proved,  Theodosius,  Eutyches, 
or  Dioscorus,  to  say  nothing  of  Chrysaphius,  would  be 
in  the  least  troubled  with  scruples  about  the  Church's 
order  or  the  common  rules  of  justice.  They  appear  to 
have  now  tried  the  experiment  of  a  second  Council  at 
Constantinople  itself,  in  which  the  trustworthiness  of 
the  documents  containing  the  official  account  of  Eu- 
tyches's  condemnation  was  impugned  ;  and  when  this 
failed  they  addressed  themselves  to  the  actual  working 
of  the  CEcumenical  Council.^ 

But  before  entering  upon  this  subject,  we  must  con- 
sider the  correspondence  which  now  ensued  between 
Eome  and  Constantinople.  Archbishop  Flavian,  when 
he  wrote  his  second  letter  to  Leo  in  answer  to  the 
censure  passed  on  him  for  not  sending  the  report  of  the 
Council  of  448,  had  not  heard  of  the  Emperor's  defiyiite 
decision  to  summon  a  General  Council,  but  rumours  of 
it  were  in  the  air.'^  His  letter  is  of  great  interest  in 
more  ways  than  one.  The  whole  tone  is  that  of  defer- 
ence to  a  superior  authority.  He  in  no  way  resented 
St.  Leo's  censure  of  his  silence.  As  a  matter  of  fact, 
he  had  written  and  sent  the  Acts  of  his  Synod,  but  they 
had  miscarried,  or  been  delayed  on  the  way.  The 
archbishop  recognised  the  duty  which  lay  upon  him  to 
report  proceedings  to  Eome.  He  describes  the  whole 
situation,  narrates  the  deposition  of  Eutyches,  and  says 
that  the  latter  has  appealed  to  the  Emperor,  thereby 

'  Libeiatus,  cap.  12.     -  •^  QpvXovfiivr}  ylvecdai  <rvvo5os,  Leon.  Ep'  26. 


PAPAL  INTERVENTION  137 

c 

trampling  under  foot  the  canons  of  the  Church. 
Further,  Flavian  tells  Leo  that  what  Eutyches  had 
asserted,  unknown  to  him,  in  his  letter  to  the  Pope,  viz. 
that  at  '  the  time  of  judgment,'  i.e.  at  the  Synod,  he 
gave  notice  of  appeal  to  Eome,  is  untrue.  He  implies 
that,  had  it  been  true,  he  would  have  suspended  pro- 
ceedings. Flavian  does  not  afford  in  this  important 
letter  the  slightest  indication  that  in  his  judgment  St. 
Leo  was  stretching  his  prerogative  in  writing  to  him  as 
he  had  done.  On  the  contrary,  he  ends  by  invoking 
that  prerogative  as  the  only  means  of  securing  the 
peace  of  the  Church.  He  asks  the  Pope  to  be  bold  with 
the  boldness  that  becomes  the  priesthood,  to  '  make  the 
common  cause  his  own,'  and  to  '  deign  to  give  his  decision 
by  means  of  a  brief  in  accordance  with  the  canonical 
deposition  of  Eutyches  at  the  Constantinopolitan  Synod.' ' 

'  avfjLip-ncpiaaffdai  KaTa^ioDo-oy.  Dr.  Bright  thinks  this  means  '  be  so 
good  as  to  give  assent,'  and  implies  no  deference.  He  notices  that 
(rvi.L\l/r}(pi(Ta(rdai  is  Hterally  '  vote  with  '  {R.  See,  p.  174).  But  elsewhere  he 
translates  ypricpos  •  sentence  '  (pp.  163,  166)  when  it  is  used  of  the  bishops 
in  the  Council  of  Ephesus.  This  is  its  general  meaning  in  Conciliar 
language,  the  character  of  the  sentence  depending  on  the  position  of  the 
person  who  pronounces  it.  Here  the  context  settles  that  it  is  a  superior 
sentence.  In  an  old  Latin  copy  of  the  letter  the  word  is  translated 
'  simul  decernere  '  {Leon.  Oi^p.  Ball.  i.  791).  KaTa^iwaov  is  simply  '  deign,' 
not  (as  Dr.  B.)  '  be  so  good  as.'  It  is  often  an  expression  of  deference. 
.  Out  of  seventeen  letters  written  by  Leo  to  the  Emperor  Marcian,  its  Latin 
equivalent  (dignare)  occurs  in  thirteen,  always  by  way  of  deference  to 
his  Imperial  Majesty.  It  is  used  three  times  of  the  Emperor  Theodosius 
and  twice  to  the  Empresses.  In  Leo's  letter  to  the  Emperor  Theodosius 
{Ep.  43),  of  which  we  have  the  Greek  and  Latin,  Leo  says  atroao^riffai 
Kara^icoaov,  avei'tere  dignare.  Once  the  Latin  word  is  used  of  Almighty 
God  {juvare  dignetur,  Ep.  37),  and  once  of  Divine  Providence  {Ep.  29). 
For  the  Greek  word  see  Liddell  and  Scott's  Lexicon  (ed.  8).  Flavian 
wi'ites  throughout  in  the  most  deferential  mood.  Eusebius  uses  kot- 
a^iaxrai  of  Archbishop  Flavian,  clearly  as  speaking  to  a  superior  (Mansi, 
vi.  656).    But  what  must  be  considered  to  settle  the  question  against  Dr. 


138  THE   ROBBER-SYNOD 

He  asks  the  Pope  also  to  '  confirm '  the  faith  of  the 
emperor  (using,  not  the  usual  word,  but  that  which 
occurs  in  our  Lord's  command  to  St.  Peter  in  St.  Luke 
xxii.^)  ;  and  he  says  that  '  the  matter  only  needs  your 
impulse  and  hel^,  which  is  bound  by  virtue  of  your 
own  consent,  to  bring  everything  into  peace  and 
calm ;  and  so  the  heresy  which  has  arisen,  and  the 
trouble  that  has  ensued,  will  be  brought  to  a  happy 
conclusion,  with  the  help  of  God,  through  your  holy 
letter  ;  and  moreover  the  Synod,  about  which  there  are 
rumours,  will  be  prevented  from  taking  place,  and  so 
the  Churches  in  every  quarter  will  not  be  troubled.'  ^ 

Flavian,  therefore,  profoundly  distrusted  the  value 
of  the  rumoured  Synod,  as  anybody  would  who  grasped 
the  situation  ;  he  looked  to  the  timely  exercise  of  the 
Papal  prerogative  as  alone  sufficient  to  secure  the  peace 
of  the  Church. 

And  in  expressing  this  conviction  he  bears  witness 
to  the  fact  that  an  equal  reverence  was  attributed  to  the 
authority  of  the  Apostolic  See  by  the  rest  of  the  orthodox 
bishops  in  the  East.^  Otherwise  there  would  be  no 
point  in  his  remark,  and  no  ground  for  his  hope. 

The  principle,  therefore,  of  Church  government 
which  the   Archbishop   of   Constantinople   assumed   as 

Bright  is  that  the  Count  Elpidius  said  in  the  Latrocinium  to  the 
bishops :  Kara^idJcraTe,  (TVjxy\ir](pi^ofx4vov  vjxiv  rod  @€ov,  irepl  rrjs  irlo'Tews 
airo(piii'aa9ai.  Elpidius  was  speaking  to  the  bishops  as  superiors  in 
matters  of  faith ;  and  Almighty  God  is  spoken  of  as  aviJ.\pr]<pos.  This 
disposes  of  a  number  of  objections  raised  by  Dr.  Bright  on  account  of 
the  word  <xvixT\n}<pos  being  applied  to  Leo  (Mansi,  vi.  621). 

'  (TT-npi^ai.  Dr.  Bright  explains  this  as  meaning  '  to  tell  on  the  mind 
of  Theodosius  ' ! 

'■^  Leon.  Ep.  26. 

^  Cf.  '  Obs.  Bailer,  de  Diss.  Quesn.  de  Eutych.  Appell.'  Leonis  Opera, 
ii.  1128. 


PAPAL  INTERVENTION  139 

Catholic  was  this — he  did  not  consider  that  matters 
should  necessarily  be  concluded  where  they  began. 
There  was,  as  yet,  no  thought  of  the  independence  of 
national  Churches,  nor  of  each  province  finally  settling 
its  own  matters.  His  connection  with  Kome  was 
intimate  and  obligatory  ;  and  it  is  clear  that  it  did  not 
depend  on  the  civil  position  of  that  city.  He  wrote  to 
Leo  as  to  him  to  whom  it  belonged  to  '  vindicate  the 
common  affairs  of  the  Churches  ;  '  he  prayed  him  to  issue 
a  brief  which  might  settle  the  disturbances  of  the  Eastern 
Churches,  and  he  alluded  to  the  passage  in  St.  Luke 
xxii.,  '  Confirm  the  brethren.'  St.  Leo  had  requested 
him,  not  merely  to  notify  the  deposition  of  Eutyches,  as 
he  would  do  to  other  Churches,  but  to  send  him  the 
Acts — precisely  what  is  done  for  the  revision  of  a  sen- 
tence by  a  superior  court.  And  Flavian  fully  recognised 
his  obligation  to  enable  St.  Leo  to  do  his  duty,  which 
St.  Leo  had  said  was  impossible  without  a  full  report  of 
the  proceedings.^  He  states  distinctly  that  not  only 
was  there  no  need  of  the  judgment  of  any  other  Eastern 
patriarch,  but  that  not  even  a  General  Council  was 
needed  ;  and  Flavian  knew  well  what  the  other  Eastern 
bishops  thought.^     This  was  in  March  a.d.  449. 

1  Ep.  23. 

'  Mansi.W.  1356.  Adnot.  Bailer.  Dr.  Bright  thinks  that  as  regards 
a  Council,  '  if  Theodosius  had  recognised  Leo's  See  as  the  supreme  court 
of  appeal,  he  would  not  have  entertained  and  acted  on  this  scheme  in 
spite  of  Leo's  objections.'  He  ought  to  have  added  '  and  in  spite  of  the 
Archbishop  of  Constantinople's  objections.'  These  two  were  better 
judges  of  the  matter  than  an  Emperor  under  the  sway  of  a  eunuch 
(Chrysaphius),  jplus  a  heretic  (Eutyches),  plus  the  '  Attila  of  the  Eastern 
Church'  (Dioscorus).  But,  in  fact,  Dr.  Bright's  misconception  of 
'  Koman  '  teaching  on  the  relation  of  a  Council  to  the  Pope  underlies  his 
objection.  Theodosius  did  not  contemplate  a  Council  apart  from  the 
See  of  Peter  ;  but  he  hoped  that  a  conciliar  expression  of  opinion  would 


140  THE   ROBBER-SYNOD 

But  in  May  Leo  had  received  Flavian's  report,  and 
he  at  once  took  in  the  whole  position.  The  *  lion '  was 
roused,  and  from  that  day  onwards  his  activity,  his 
decision,  his  wisdom,  his  piety,  his  tender  charity  and 
his  indomitable  courage  were  such  as  to  mark  him  out 
as  one  of  the  most  extraordinary  characters  that  have 
filled  the  pages  of  history,  even  were  we  to  forget  the 
effect  of  his  noble  presence  on  Attila  leader  of  the  Huns, 
outside  the  walls  of  Rome,  or  his  influence  over  Genseric 
within  the  city.  He  had  already  given  the  death-blow 
to  the  remnants  of  Priscillianism  ;  he  had  baffled  the 
clandestine  movements  of  the  Manicheans,  and  he  had 
sent  Pelagianism  to  its  grave.  But  here  was  an  enemy 
that  threatened  to  shake  the  foundations  of  the  Christian 
religion  by  a  direct  assault  on  the  person  of  its  Founder. 
All  that  activity,  and  ingenuity,  and  worldly  prestige, 
all  that  the  favour  of  princes  and  the  friendship  of  the 
great  could  do,  was  enlisted  in  its  favour.  But  St.  Leo 
was  more  than  a  match  for  these.  He  was  so  in  virtue 
of  the  divine  promises  to  Peter,  for  we  shall  see  that  it 
was  as  the  successor  of  St.  Peter,  and  through  the 
Church's  recognition  of  the  authority  of  the  Apostolic 
See,  that  Leo  eventually  triumphed.  Had  he  been  com- 
pelled to  vindicate  the  authority  of  St.  Peter's  See— that 
is  to  say,  if  men  had  been  able  to  resist  him  on  the 
ground  that  our  Lord  did  not  include  the  successors  of 
St.  Peter  in  His  commission  to  that  Apostle — the  posi- 

influence  the  Papal  judgment.  Leo  would  hardly  have  ventured  to 
speak  of  the  Emperor's  wish  to  have  the  faith  defined  by  St.  Peter,  and 
to  say  this  in  a  public  letter  to  the  Synod,  if  he  had  had  no  foundation 
for  the  statement.  Theodosius,  though  under  bad  influence,  had  his 
better  moments. 


PAPAL   INTERVENTION  141 

tion  would  have  been  an  impossible  one.  But  the  faith 
of  the  Church  had  been  declared  in  the  most  explicit 
terms  at  the  Council  of  Ephesus.  East  and  West  had 
there  agreed  in  the  position  that  '  it  had  been  known  to 
all  ages,  and  ivas  doubted  by  none,  that  the  blessed 
Apostle  Peter,  Prince  and  Head  of  the  Apostles,  received 
the  keys  of  the  Kingdom  from  the  Saviour  of  the  world,' 
and  that  Peter  '  lives  and  exercises  judgment  in  his 
successors.'  Such  were  the  undisputed  terms  in  which 
the  Papal  legates  at  Ephesus  had  expressed  the  general 
teaching  of  the  Church,  which  by  common  consent  had 
been  placed  in  the  archives  of  that  (Ecumenical  Council, 
as  containing  nothing  strange  to  the  ears  of  the  assem- 
bled bishops  of  the  East,  nay,  as  spoken  '  suitably  '  i.e. 
in  accordance  with  the  canons  {aK6kov6co9). 

It  was,  then,  as  the  successor  of  the  Prince  of  the 
Apostles  that  St.  Leo  now  acted,  and  that  he  claimed  to 
act ;  and  no  voice  in  the  East  was  raised  to  deny  this 
truth,  save,  indirectly,  one,  and  that  was  the  voice  of  the 
man  who  became  the  patron  of  Eutyches,  and  who  was 
extruded  from  the  Church  at  her  (Ecumenical  Council  at 
Chalcedon. 

The  ides  of  June  had  come,  and  Leo,  having  been 
already  engaged  on  his  longer  epistle  to  Flavian,  saw  the 
necessity  of  taking  more  stringent  measures  to  meet  the 
difficulties  in  which  Flavian  was  placed.  He  decided 
upon  sending  representatives  to  Constantinople  to  inquire 
into  the  whole  matter,  and  instead  of  sending  his  letter 
by  Flavian's  messenger,  he  sent  it  by  these  messengers, 
together  with  letters  addressed  to  Theodosius,  to  Pul- 
cheria,  to  the  Archimandrites  of  Constantinople,  to  the 
Synod,  of  which  he  had  now  received  notice,  and  in  which 


142  THE   EOBBER-SYNOD 

he  acquiesced,^  and  to  Julian,  Bishop  of  Cos,  of  whom 
more  hereafter. 

The  '  Tome  of  St.  Leo,'  ^  as  the  epistle  now  sent  to 
Flavian  is  called,  stands  almost  alone,  after  Holy 
Scripture,  in  the  reverence  with  which  it  was  regarded 
for  ages  by  the  entire  Church.  Its  reception  was 
equalled  only  by  the  position  assigned  in  the  primitive 
Church  to  the  letter  of  St.  Clement,  the  third  successor 
of  St.  Peter,  written  to  the  Corinthians  in  the  first 
century.  It  was  frequently  read  in  the  East  after  a 
General  Council  in  professions  of  faith.  St.  Gregory  the 
Great  says  :  '  If  anyone  ever  presumes  to  say  anything 
against  the  faith  of  these  four  Synods,  and  against  the 
Tome  and  definition  of  Pope  Leo,  of  holy  memory,  let 
him  be  anathema.'  ^  The  Sixth  QEcumenical  Council  calls 
it  '  divinely  written,'  and  says  that  '  by  it  they  [the 
fathers]  made  void  the  understanding  between  Eutyches 
and  Dioscorus.' 

It  opens  at  once  with  judging  Eutyches,  and  then 
proceeds  to  that  magnificent  exposition  of  the  '  sacrament 
of  our  faith,'  which  on  its  first  perusal  in  youth  has 
impressed  so  many  much  as  the  first  sight  of  the  sea. 

It  is,  however,  with  the  ending  of  St.  Leo's  Tome 
that  the  purpose  of  this  book  is  concerned.  The  Arch- 
bishop Flavian  (be  it  remembered),  to  whom  the  Tome  is 
addressed,  had  come  before  Leo  as  the  judge  of  first  in- 
stance, having  synodically  condemned  an  Archimandrite 
of  his  own  archdiocese.     He  brought  him  before  Leo  in 

'  This  was  clearly  the  case,  in  spite  of  the  apparent  contradiction 
given  at  the  Eobber-Synod,  which  will  be  explained  hereafter. 

-  Leoii.  0pp.  Bailer.,  Ep,  28.  A  '  Tome  '  was  a  doctrinal  formulary. 
The  word  itself  means  a  part  of  a  book  done  up  (rolled  up)  by  itself — a 
volume. 

3  Lib.  vi.  Ep.  2. 


PAPAL   INTERVENTION  143 

his  letter  as  already  condemned  in  the  Constantino- 
politan  Synod,  to  be  condemned  more  solemnly  and  by  a 
final  peremptory  judgment  passed  by  the  Apostolic  See.^ 
For  he  did  not  merely  notify  the  deposition  of  Eutyches, 
but  asked  for  help,  and  asserted  that  peace  could  only  be 
obtained  by  Leo's  approval  of  the  Synod  of  Constanti- 
nople (whose  Acts  he  sent)  and  by  his  issuing  a  brief  to 
that  effect.  Accordingly  at  the  end  of  his  Tome  St.  Leo 
gave  his  judgment. 

Without  referring  the  matter  to  a  Council  of  the  whole 
West,  he  reviews  the  synodical  Acts,  and  in  part  con- 
firms, in  part  disapproves,  of  the  judgment  of  the  Con- 
stantinopolitan  Synod.  He  confirms  the  condemnation 
of  Eutyches  ;  but  he  reprehends  the  acts  of  the  Synod  as 
inadequately  conducted.  He  blames  the  bishops  for  not 
having  proscribed  under  anathema  the  heretical  saying 
of  Eutyches,  '  I  confess  that  our  Lord  consisted  of  two 
natures  before  the  union,  but  I  confess  only  one  nature 
after  the  union.'  And  then  he  directs  that  Eutyches 
should  be  received  back  again  if  he  repents,  and  gives 
the  exact  method  of  such  reception.  The  matter,  there- 
fore, needed  to  be  done  more  exactly  and  canonically 
than  in  the  Synod  of  Constantinople.  Eutyches,  he 
says,  might  have  thought  that  he  had  spoken  some  of 
these  words  *  rightly,'  or  that  they  were  such  as  could  be 
tolerated  ('  tolerabiliter  '),  so  far  as  any  expression  of  the 
Synod  to  the  contrary  was  concerned.  '  In  order,  how- 
ever,' the  Pope  concludes,  *  to  bring  this  whole  matter  to 
the  desired  end,  we  have  sent,  in  our  stead,  our  brethren 
the  Bishop  Julius  and  the  priest  Eenatus,  with  my  son, 
the  deacon  Hilar  us,  with  whom  we  have  associated  the 
notary  Dulcitius,  whose  faith  has  been  approved  by  us, 


144  THE  ROBBER-SYNOD 

trusting  that  the  help  of  God  will  be  with  us,  that  he 
who  had  erred  may  abjure  his  false  opinion  and  be 
saved.     God  keep  thee  safe,  dearest  brother.' 

Such  was  the  exercise  of  Papal  jurisdiction  contained 
in  this  letter,  one  of  the  most  celebrated  documents  of 
Christian  antiquity.  It  contains  an  exercise  of  authority 
such  as  only  belongs  to  the  judge  of  a  supreme  court. 
None  of  the  other  Patriarchs  are  taken  into  account ; 
St.  Leo  speaks  in  full  authority,  and  that  he  was  not 
usurping  an  authority  which  was  disallowed  by  others  is 
certain  from  the  fact  that  the  Council  of  Chalcedon  and 
the  whole  Catholic  Church  accepted  the  Tome  as  a 
solemn  judgment  and  sentence  within  the  competency 
of  the  Pope's  authority. 

Thus,  not  only  did  Eutyches  pretend  that  he  had 
appealed  to  the  Pope,  when  it  suited  his  purpose,  on  the 
understanding  that  his  appeal  would  be  sure  to  suspend 
the  sentence  of  the  Eastern  bishops  against  him  ;  not 
only  did  the  Archbishop  of  Constantinople  send  the 
synodical  Acts  to  be  reviewed  by  the  Pope  as  judge  in  the 
matter ;  not  only  did  Leo  act  as  judge  and  decide  the 
case  so  far  as  could  be  done  at  a  distance,  and  send 
legates  to  do  the  rest  in  his  stead— but,  as  we  shall 
presently  see,  an  (Ecumenical  Synod,  and  the  universal 
Church  for  ever  after,  accepted  as  an  authoritative  ex- 
position of  the  Nicene  faith  the  Tome  which  contained 
this  exercise  of  authority,  against  which  not  a  protest, 
not  a  murmur,  not  a  whisper  was  ever  raised.^  But  how 
could  this  be  unless  the  position  of  judge  which  he 
assumed  therein  was  in  accordance  with  Apostolic 
doctrine  ? 

Together  with  his  '  Tome '  or  Epistle  to  Flavian,  Leo 

'  Cf.  '  Observ.  Bailer,  de  Eutych.  Appell.'  Leonis  0pp.  ii.  1130. 


PAPAL   INTERVENTION  145 

sent  a  letter  to  the  Emperor  Theodosius,  which  is  of  im- 
portance as  showing  the  grounds  on  which  he  acquiesced 
in  the  convocation  of  a  General  Council.  He  says  that 
Eutyches  has  been  proved  to  have  erred — there  is  no 
question,  according  to  St.  Leo,  about  that ;  but  since  the 
Emperor  has  settled  upon  a  Council  at  Ephesus  '  that  the 
truth  may  be  made  known  to  the  unskilful  old  man,'  he, 
the  Pope,  sends  legates  to  supply  his  place.  '  The 
legates,'  says  St.  Leo,  *  are  commissioned  to  carry  with 
them  a  disposition  to  justice  and  benignity,  so  that, 
since  there  can  he  no  question  as  to  lohat  is  the  integrity 
of  the  Christian  confession,  the  depravity  of  error  may 
be  condemned.'  If  Eutyches  repents — which  the  kind 
heart  of  the  Pope  always  contemplates — the  benevolence 
of  the  priesthood  ('  bishops  '  in  the  Greek  version)  is  to 
come  to  his  aid.  Eutyches,  says  St.  Leo,  had  promised 
him,  in  his  original  petition,  that  he  would  correct  what- 
ever the  Pope  condemned.^ 

The  idea  of  the  Council,  then,  was  that  it  was  a 
fitting  machinery  to  impress  on  Eutyches  the  importance 
of  obeying  the  Papal  decision,  and  to  deal  with  him 
properly  if  he  asked  pardon.  It  was  in  this  that  the 
Constantinopolitan  Synod  had  come  short  of  perfect 
justice  and  charity. 

But  St.  Leo  continues  with  the  following  descriptions 
of  the  position  occupied  by  the  decisions  contained  in  his 
Tome  or  letter  to  Flavian.  He  says  to  the  Emperor  : 
'But  what  things  the  Catholic  Church  universally 
believes  and  teaches  concerning  the  sacrament  of  the 
Lord's  Incarnation  are  more  fully  contained  in  the 
writings  which  I  have  sent  to  my  brother  and  fellow- 
bishop  Flavian. 

»  Ep.  29. 

Ii 


146  THE   EOBBER-SYNOD 

> 
At  the  same  time  the  Pope  wrote  to  the  Em- 
peror's saintly  sister,  who  had  brought  him  up  in  his 
tender  years  under  all  the  best  influences  of  the 
Christian  faith.  It  was  not  her  fault  if  her  Imperial 
brother  now  sided  with  heretics  ;  and  it  was  to  be  her 
lot  to  assist  the  saintly  Pope  in  the  Church's  struggle 
with  the  new  heresy.  To  her— the  Empress  Pulcheria 
— St.  Leo  described  the  error  of  Eutyches  as  '  contrary 
to  our  only  hope  and  that  of  our  fathers,'  and  told  her 
that,  if  he  persists  in  his  error,  he  cannot  be  absolved. 
*  For,'  he  adds,  the  '  Apostolic  ^  See  both  acts  with 
severity  in  the  case  of  the  obdurate,  and  wishes  to 
pardon  those  who  suffer  themselves  to  be  corrected.'  It 
is  obvious  to  remark  that  he  considers  the  absolution  of 
Eutyches  to  rest  with  the  Apostolic  See.  He  hopes  that 
Pulcheria  will  do  her  best  to  help  on  the  Catholic  faith, 
and  says  that  he  has  delegated  his  authority  to  those 
whom  he  has  sent,  that  pardon  may  be  bestowed  if  the 
error  is  done  away. 

It  is  here,  as  elsewhere,  the  Apostolic  See  that  is 
assumed  to  be  the  agent  in  the  matter,  and  the  Council 
is  to  be  concerned,  not  with  settling  what  is  the  true 
faith,  but  with  moving  Eutyches  to  repentance  by  the 
display  of  unanimity  among  the  bishops. 

Still  more  important,  if  possible,  are  the  terms  of  the 
letter  which  he  sent  to  the  Archimandrites  of  Constanti- 
nople.^ They  are  his  '  beloved  children.'  He  is  sending 
to  them  persons  '  a  latere '  to  assist  them  in  '  the  defence 
of  the  truth,'  not  for  the  investigation  of  the  faith.  He 
sets  his  seal  to  their  condemnation  of  Eutyches.     If  he 

'  Literally,  '  The  moderation  of  the  Apostolic  See  observes  this  dis- 
cipline that  it  both  '  &c.     Ep.  30. 
2  Ep.  32. 


PAPAL  INTERVENTION  147 

repents  and  makes  full  satisfaction — which  is  the  con- 
stantly recurring  thought  in  Leo's  mind — then  '  we  wish 
him  to  obtain  mercy.'  But  '  as  to  the  sacrament  of  the 
great  love  of  God  {pietatis  magnce)  in  which  we  have  justi- 
fication and  redemption  by  the  Incarnation  of  the  Word 
of  God,  our  teaching  from  the  tradition  of  the  Fathers  ^ 
is  sufficiently  explained  in  letters  to  Flavian,  so  that  you 
may  know  from  your  chief  (per  insmuatione7n  Prcesulis 
vestri)  what  in  accordance  with  the  Gospel  of  our  Lord 
Jesus  Christ  ive  wish  to  be  established  in  the  hearts  of 
all  the  faithful.' 

Still  more  definite  are  the  words  of  the  Pope  to  the 
Synod  itself,  which  was  to  meet  in  August.  He  gives  as 
the  ground  of  its  being  convoked  the  Emperor's  wish  to 
add  the  authority  of  the  Apostolic  See  to  his  edict,^  as 
though  his  Majesty  desired  '  that  the  meaning  of  the 
answer  given  by  the  Prince  of  the  Apostles  to  our  Lord's 
question  should  be  declared  by  the  most  blessed  Peter 
himself,'  i.e.  through  his  own  see.  The  object  of  the 
Council  is  further  defined  to  be  that  '  all  error  may  be 
done  away  with  by  a  fuller  judgment '  ('  pleniori  judicio  ') 
—  exactly  the  idea  of  a  Council  which  has  been  given 
above. ^     The  Council  was  as  it  were  the  fuller  and  more 

'  '  Nostra  ex  Patrum  traditione  sententia.' 

-  Ep.  33.  '  Ad  sanctffi  dispositionis  effectum  ' — '  dispositio  '  being  a 
term  in  use  for  Imperial  edicts. 

^  P.  39.  So  Mansi  says  : '  Non  ergo  concilii  judicium  plenius  appellavit, 
quia  a  superiore  potestate  dimanare  indicaret,  sed  quia  in  majorinumero 
ibi  judices  assident.'  Mansi,  Aninmdv.  in  Natal  Alex.  H.  E.  vol.  ix. 
Diss.  xii.  Harnack  says  :  '  The  Council  is  merely  an  opus  superaddition 
"  ut  pleniori  judicio  omnis  possit  error  aboleri."  Thus  the  condemnation 
of  Eutyches  is  already  decided  upon,  and  the  Council  merely  repeats  it. 
The  Pope  enjoins  this.'  Hist,  of  Dogma  (Tr.),  iv.  203.  The  '  mere  repe- 
tition,' however,  is  of  immense  value  to  anyone  who  believes  in  the 
supernatural  character  of  the  Church,  and  is  exactly  what  is  calculated 

L  2 


148  THE   ROBBEE-SYNOD 

emphatic  utterance  of  the  Papal  judgment.  Its  action 
was  to  consist  in  adhering  to  the  judgment  of  the 
Apostolic  See— in  as  it  were  prolonging  its  utterance, 
and  applying  it  materially  and  visibly  to  the  person  in 
hand.  It  was  not  a  higher  judgment,  not  the  confirma- 
tion of  a  superior  authority,  but  the  sentence  of  the  Pope 
swelling  out  and  completed  by  its  synodical  proclamation, 
as  the  sufferings  of  Christ  were  completed  by  those  of 
His  followers.  His  legates  were  to  preside  over  its 
actual  utterance ;  they  were  to  determine  with  the 
holy  assembly  of  the  episcopal  brotherhood  by  a  common 
sentence  '  what  things  will  be  pleasing  to  the  Lord.'  ^ 
The  Pope  then  goes  on  to  give  a  sketch  of  what  Eutyches 
should  do,  and  repeats  what  he  had  already  said  to 
Flavian,  viz.  that  Eutyches  in  the  document  ('  libellus ') 
which  he  had  originally  transmitted  had  promised  to 
obey  the  Holy  See.  He  also  speaks  of  his  Tome  as 
having  been  written  to  abolish  error  and  unite  the  world 
in  one  and  the  same  confession  of  faith. ^ 

One  other  letter  he  wrote  on  the  same  day  to  Julian, 
Bishop  of  Cos,  in  the  course  of  which  he  says  he  has  sent 
letters  to  Flavian  '  from  which  both  your  beloved  self  and 
the  whole  Church  may  know  about  the  ancient  and  only 
faith,  what  we  hold  and  preach  as  of  divine  tradition.' 

No  sooner  had  the  messengers  set  out  with  this 
batch  of  letters  than  Flavian's  original  letter  (written 
immediately  after  the  Constantinopolitan  Synod)  arrived, 
containing  another  copy  of  the  Acts  of  the  Synod  which 

to  impress  those  who  do  not.     Bishops  do  not  always  repeat  what  they 
do  not  believe.     Cf.  p.  42. 

1  E;p.  33.  Com^nuni  vohiscum  sententia  :  not,  as  Dr.  Bright  is  fond 
of  translating  communis,  '  by  a  sentence  in  which  all  the  agreeing  parties 
are  equal,^  for  St.  Leo  taught  that  the  common  sentence  of  the  Apostolic 
See  and  the  bishops  was  that  of  the  head  and  members. 


PAPAL  INTEEVENTION  149 

he  had  spontaneously  sent  to  Eome,  and  which  had  been 
mysteriously  delayed.  Leo  at  once  wrote  to  him  briefly, 
saying  that  the  Synod  was  not  really  needed.  And  he 
took  the  opportunity  of  writing  once  more  to  the  Emperor, 
excusing  himself  from  attendance  at  the  Synod  on  three 
grounds  :  first,  because  there  was  no  precedent  for  a  Pope 
attending  such  a  Council  in  person  ;  secondly,  if  there 
were,  temporal  necessities  at  home  were  in  the  way  (the 
barbarians  were  wellnigh  at  the  door)  ;  and  thirdly, 
because  the  case  was  so  clear  that  there  was  no  real  need 
(*  rationabilius  abstinendum ') .     Still,  he  says,  he  sends 


CHAPTEE   III 

THE    'robber-synod'    OR   LATROCINIUM^ 

1.  The  Acquittal  of  Eutyches 

On   August   8,   a.d.   449,   the  ill-fated   Council  met  at 
Ephesus.     Its  salient  feature  may  be  described  in  the 

'  Besides  the  ordinary  sources  of  information  on  the  '  Kobber- 
Synod,'  such  as  Prosper,  Liberatus,  Facundus,  &c.,  the  following  should 
be  consulted  :  (1)  Martin,  '  Actes  du  Brigandage  d'EpMse,  Tr.  faite  sur  le 
texte  Syriaque  contenu  dans  le  MS.  14530  du  Mus6e  Britannique  par  M. 
l'Abb6  Martin,'  Amiens,  1874.  This  Syriac  text  was  published  by  Perry, 
and  is  to  be  seen  in  the  Oriental  room  at  the  British  Museum.  (2)  Le 
Pseudo- Synode,  Paris,  1875,  by  the  same  author.  (3)  Rdcits  de  Dioscore, 
originally  in  Greek  and  translated  into  Coptic — one  of  the  treasures  of  the 
Jacdbite  Church  of  Alexandria,  read  liturgically  every  year  in  our  Lady's 
Sanctuary.  It  will  be  found  in  the  Revue  Egyptologigue,  1880,  p.  188. 
Not  much  in  the  way  of  fact  is  to  be  gleaned  from  this,  but  it  helps  to 
realise  the  tone  of  Dioscorus.  (4)  The  appeal  of  Flavian  and  of  Eusebius 
in  the  Spicilegium  Casinense,  vol.  i.  (5)  Evagrius's  account  of  the  whole 
Eutychian  controversy,  which  is  graphic  and  gives  the  Oriental  (Antio- 
chene)  point  of  view,  and  is  useful  for  comparison  of  the  Greek  terms 
with  the  Acts  in  Mansi.  (6)  Christianus  Lupus,  Synodorum  Decreta  et 
Canones,  vol.  i. :  Appendix  ad  Ephesinum  Latrocinium  (Brussels,  1673). 
The  value  of  Lupus's  account,  to  which  I  am  indebted  in  the  following 
pages,  consists  in  the  way  he  seizes  salient  points.  His  references  are 
scanty,  but,  after  verifying  his  quotations,  I  have  found  them  uniformly 
correct.  (7)  Nothing  will  make  up  for  a  careful  study,  if  somewhat 
toilsome,  of  the  narrative  in  Mansi,  vi.  587-927.  The  account  of  the 
Latrocinium  is  included  in  the  account  of  the  first  session  of  Chalcedon, 
and  in  that  again  is  included  the  account  of  the  Councils  of  448  and  449 


EUTYCHES   ACQUITTED  151 

words  used  by  Tillemont  of  the  immediate  result, 
*  Dioscore  r6gne  partout.'  It  had  been  the  dream  of  this 
unhappy  man  to  lower  Constantinople  and  to  undo  the 
mischievous  canon  of  381,  which  placed  Alexandria 
below  the  '  upstart '  Imperial  See.  So  far  Dioscorus  was 
within  his  rights.  But  his  political  ambition  connected 
itself  with  a  question  of  the  faith,  in  which,  although  not 
originally  heterodox,  he  took  the  wrong  side.  As  the  here- 
ditary champion  of  the  memory  of  Cyril,  his  great  pre- 
decessor at  Alexandria,  he  saw  Nestorianism  everywhere, 
and  his  theology  lost  its  balance.  But  the  support  of 
what  he  took  for  orthodoxy  was  clearly  secondary  to 
the  attainment  of  a  certain  ecclesiastico-political  supre- 
macy, which  was  thwarted  by  the  third  canon  of  Con- 
stantinople in  381.  Against  this  Synod  his  bitterness 
knew  no  bounds.  These  two  features  of  the  situation 
must  be  borne  in  mind  throughout,  if  we  would  not  miss 
the  meaning  of  much  which  now  took  place  at  Ephesus. 
Whatever  should  be  proclaimed  orthodox  must  be  shown 
to  be  in  accord  with  Cyril's  teaching,  and  the  action 
of  the  fathers  at  Constantinople  in  381  must  be  in 
every  possible  way  depreciated.^ 

The   Council   presented   every    possible    feature    of 
irregularity.     Its  composition  was  open  to  the   charge 

at  Constantinople,  under  Flavian  and  Thalassius.  I  have  thought  it 
well  to  quote  these  authorities  here,  because  Harnack,  without  any 
scholarly  treatment  of  the  subject,  has  minimised  the  atrocities  of  the 
Latrociniujn,  even  likening  it  to  the  CEcumenical  Councils  (Hist  of 
Dogma,  Eutychian  Controversy,  vol.  iv.  Eng.  Tr.). 

'  A  layman  of  his  diocese,  Sophronius,  deposed  at  the  Council  of 
Chalcedon  that  Dioscorus  '  considered  himself  above  everyone  else  and 
would  not  allow  the  Imperial  decrees  (tvttous)  nor  the  highest  judicial 
sentences  (airocpda-eis)  to  be  carried  out,  saying  that  the  country  [Egypt] 
belonged  to  himself  rather  than  to  the  rulers.'     Mansi,  vi.  1032. 


152  THE   KOBBER-SYNOD 

of  '  packing.'  Its  first  session  was  due  to  a  sudden 
summons  to  meet  at  dawn  without  consulting  the 
bishops  in  common.^  Dioscorus  took  precedence  of 
the  Papal  legates,  who,  under  protest,  retired  from  the 
circle  of  bishops  and  remained  standing  aloof.  He 
seems  to  have  justified  his  position  on  the  ground  that 
the  Emperor  had  ordered  it,  and  that  legates  were 
not  the  same  as  the  person  whom  they  represented. 
This  at  least  is  a  fair  deduction  from  the  words  of  the 
legate  Hilary.-  The  Papal  letter  to  the  Synod  was 
handed  to  Dioscorus  to  read,  and  he  took  it  together 
with  the  letter  to  Flavian,  (the  Tome)  as  Tillemont 
suggests,^  and  the  notary,  in  collusion  with  him, 
immediately  spoke  of  another  Imperial  letter.  Juvenal 
of  Jerusalem,  who  played  the  grand  Patriarch  through- 
out and  sat  above  Domnus  of  Antioch,  proposed  that  the 
Emperor's  letter  be  read  at  once.  The  Papal  letter  was 
simply  suppressed.  The  Emperor,  in  his  letter,  lauded 
Barsumas  to  the  skies,  and  this  miserable  monk,  the 
accuser  of  Domnus,  and  the  inciter  of  violence  later  on, 
was  allowed,  contrary  to  the  rules  of  the  Church,  to  take 
his  seat  as  a  constituent  member  of  the  Synod. 

The  Emperor  had  ordered  that  all  those  who  had 
taken  part  in  the  condemnation  of  Eutyches  should  now 
be  under  trial.  The  Imperial  letter  was  summarised  by 
the  prejudiced  notary  in  his  digest  of  the  Acts  thus : 
'  Concerning  Flavian  of  holy  memory  as  introducing 
certain    disturbances*  in  regard  to  the    faith    against 

'  This  is  a  detail  we  owe  to  the  recently  discovered  letter  of  Flavian 
to  Leo.  -^  Mansi,  vi.  613. 

^  Dioscorus  was  condemned  at  Chalcedon  for  not  reading  the  Tome. 
See  infra,  and  Evagrius,  H.  E.  ii.  4. 

■»  avuKLvovvrds  riva.  This  was  the  word  used  in  his  final  condemna- 
tion.    Mansi,  vi,  621. 


EUTYCHES  ACQUITTED  153 

Eutyches.'  This  was  the  keynote  of  the  Acts,  viz. 
unsettlement  or  innovation,  and  it  was  really  aimed 
at  the  Council  of  Constantinople  of  381,  which  in  its  third 
canon  placed  Constantinople  above  Alexandria,  and 
which,  as  we  have  seen,  enacted  certain  additions  in 
regard  to  the  Apollinarian  heresy — a  heresy  akin  to  the 
error  of  Eutyches.^ 

After  Juvenal,  Thalassius  was  the  next  to  speak.  He 
had  been  appointed  President,  together  with  Dioscorus 
and  Juvenal,  by  desire  of  Eutyches  and  Chrysaphius. 
He  was  a  neophyte,  a  secular  official  who  had  been 
irregularly  foisted  into  the  see  of  Caesarea  Cappadocia, 
and,  it  is  interesting  to  note,  had  a  special  grudge  against 
Domnus  and  Flavian  by  reason  of  their  compact  as  to 
the  third  canon  of  381,  Domnus  having  allowed  pre- 
cedence to  Flavian's  predecessor.  He  had  a  natural  pre- 
judice against  the  see  of  Constantinople,  as  its  occupants, 
one  after  the  other,  were  endeavouring  to  include  his 
own  '  Diocese  '  of  Pontus  in  their  jurisdiction.  He  was 
consequently  a  ready  instrument  in  the  hands  of  Eu- 
tyches. He  carried  his  antagonism  to  Constantinople 
to  the  extent  (as  we  shall  see  hereafter)  of  at  least 
delaying  his  adhesion  to  the  twenty-eighth  canon  of 
Chalcedon.  This  prelate  now  proposed,  and  justly,  that 
the  question  of  faith  should  take  precedence  of  everything 
else,  and  Julian,  the  Papal  legate,  who,  with  his  co-legate 
'  stayed  to  see  the  end,'  seconded  the  proposal.  But 
Dioscorus  at  once  objected.  His  aim  was  not  in  the 
least  to  discuss  the  matter  of  faith,  but  to  get  rid  of 
Flavian  on  the  ground  of  his  deference  to  the  Synod  of 

*  Apollinarius  spoke  of  the  body  of  our  Lord  as  not  strictly  human, 
but  as  fashioned  straight  from  the  Substance  of  Deity.  The  heresy  of 
Eutyches  equally  made  the  body  of  our  Lord  unhuman. 


154  THE  EOBBER-SYNOD 

381.  Throughout  the  Latrocinium  this  was  the  object, 
however  suppressed  in  terras,  which  Dioscorus  kept  in 
view.  He  urged  that  they  had  met  to  consider  the 
question  as  to  whether  the  matters  which  had  arisen 
(that  is,  as  he  meant,  Flavian's  condemnation  of  Eutyches) 
were  in  accordance  with  the  '  statutes  of  the  Fathers,' 
or  whether  they  were  innovations.  '  Do  you  wish,'  he 
imperiously  asked, '  to  innovate  ^  on  the  faith  of  the  holy 
fathers  ?  '  ^  Again,  '  For  the  confirmation  of  the  faith  I 
search  the  statutes  of  the  fathers  who  met  at  Niccea  and 
at  EpJiesus  '^ — deliberately  omitting  the  Council  of  Con- 
stantinople in  381.  The  whole  Synod  exclaimed  that 
Dioscorus  was  '  the  guardian  of  the  canons,'  '  the  guar- 
dian of  the  faith,'  most  of  them  quite  unintentionally 
condemning  the  Creed  of  Nicaea  as  expanded  by  the  150 
fathers  of  Constantinople  in  381. 

Eutyches  was  now  introduced  to  the  Synod.  He 
opened  with  a  little  personal  vanity  as  to  his  labours 
for  the  faith  against  Nestorius,  and  handed  in  a  docu- 
ment containing  a  confession  of  his  faith,  which  consisted 
of  the  Nicene  Creed  shorn  of  the  Constantinopolitan 
additions.^  This  was  afterwards  pointed  out  in  the 
Council  of  Chalcedon.^^  He  omitted,  that  is,  the  words 
'  of  the  Holy  Ghost  and  the  Virgin  Mary,'  which  had 
been  inserted  in  view  of  Apollinarian  teaching.  In  a 
word,  he  handed  in  the  original  form  of  the  Creed,  which 
was  not  that  in  common  use  in  Constantinople,  where 
his  monastery  was  situated.  It  was  the  Creed  in  the 
form  in  which  Apollinarius  himself  was  willing  to  accept 
it.      Not   that    Eutyches   was    averse    to    condemning 

'  avaa-Kevda-ai,  another  of  the  words  used  in  Flavian's  final  condem- 
nation. 

2  Mansi,  vi.  624.         »  Ibid.  625.         "  lUd.  629.  ^  Ibid.  632. 


EUTYCHES   ACQUITTED  155 

Apollinarius  by  name,  and  those  who  say  that  the  flesh 
of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  came  down  from  Heaven,'  ^  but 
he  had  evaded  using  the  Creed  as  formulated  by  a 
Council  (viz.  that  of  381)  which  had  condemned  Apollin- 
arius. In  this  last  declaration,  however,  as  to  the  Body 
of  our  Lord  not  having  come  from  Heaven,  he  receded 
from  the  position  he  had  taken  up  at  the  Council  of  448 
under  Flavian. 

He  added  that  he  accepted  the  Nicene  Faith  as  con- 
firmed at  the  Council  of  Ephesus  under  Cyril.  He  had 
learnt  to  misinterpret  Cyril,  and  therefore  had  no  diffi- 
culty in  professing  agreement  with  him  and  retaining 
his  own  heresy.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  the  Nicene  Creed 
as  contained  in  his  profession  of  faith  was  not  exactly 
that  which  the  Council  of  Ephesus  accepted  from 
Charisius  at  the  session  at  which  the  decree  prohibiting 
any  alteration  was  enacted.  This  latter  was  longer  in 
the  portion  relating  to  the  Third  Person  in  the  Holy 
Trinity. 

His  indictment  against  Flavian  was,  that  he 
(Eutyches)  had  been  accused  before  him  at  a  Synod  of 
bishops  who  happened  to  be  staying  in  the  Imperial 
city,  which  was  not  a  Synod  for  the  purpose  of  dealing 
with  heresy  ^ ;  that  the  accusation  was  too  vague  and  ill 
conceived  ;  that  Flavian  had  been  on  familiar  terms  with 
his  accuser,  Eusebius,  while  the  case  was  going  on,  a 
fact  suggestive  of  collusion ;  that  Flavian  had  been 
prepared  to  condemn  him  unheard,  trusting  to  his  keeping 
at  home  in  the  silence  of  his  monastery  ;  that  whereas 
(and  this  was  the  real  point  that  commended  itself  to 

'  Mansi,  vi.  633. 

-  This  was  the  '  Resident  Synod,'  as  it  was  called,  and  in  this  matter 
Eutyches  had  the  appearance  of  Canon  Law  in  his  favour. 


156  THE   ROBBER-SYNOD 

Dioscoriis)  he  had  offered  to  confess  by  word  of  mouth 
and  in  writing  the  Nicene  faith  as  interpreted  at  Ephesus 
in  431,  Flavian  required  certain  additions  to  that  faith, 
so  that  he  was  really  condemned  for  adhesion  to  the 
Council  of  Ephesus  ;  and  that  Flavian  had  not  respected 
his  appeal  to  the  Council  before  which  he  now  appeared, 
*  whereas  he  ought  before  all  things  to  have  written  to 
the  archbishops  to  whom  he  [Eutyches]  had  appealed.'^ 
He  wound  up  with  an  appeal  to  the  Council  to  stop  the 
mischief  at  its  root  by  confirming  the  Creed  as  the  holy 
fathers  at  Nicsea  handed  it  down,  which  the  holy  fathers 
at  the  second  Council  (that  held  at  Ephesus)  confirmed 
— thus  indirectly  setting  aside  the  Constantinopolitan 
additions.^  '  These,'  said  Bishop  Diogenes  at  Chalcedon, 
'  he  passed  by  as  being  Apollinarian.' 

Flavian  now  asked  that  Eusebius  of  Dorylaeum, 
Eutyches's  accuser,  might  be  heard  in  answer.^  But  the 
Count  Elpidius  demurred  on  the  ground  that  all  who 
had  acted  as  judges  in  the  Council  that  condemned 
Eutyches  (a.d.  448)  were  there  to  be  judged  and  that 
they  could  not  admit  the  accuser  to  have  his  say  over 
again  in  this  Council — a  decision  contrary  to  the  most 
ordinary  rules  of  justice. 

It  was  now  proposed  that  the  Acts  of  the  Council  of 
448,  in  which  Eutyches  was  condemned,  should  be  read 
through ;  but  the  legate  Julius  interposed  and  claimed 
that  the  letter  of  Pope  Leo  should  first  be  read.  This 
was  a  difficulty  for  Dioscorus.     It  was  a  serious  matter 

>  Viz.  Leo,  Dioscorus,  Juvenal,  and  Anastasius,  but  not  the  Arch- 
bishop of  Antioch. 

2  Mansi,  vi.  640-644. 

3  Eusebius,  in  his  letter  of  appeal  to  Leo,  speaks  of  Leo's  having 
ordered  his  attendance  at  the  Council. 


EUTYCHES  ACQUITTED  157 

to  suppress  a  Papal  letter,  and  also  he  could  hardly 
recede  openly  from  his  express  promise  that  the  letter 
should  be  read  ;  and  yet  to  read  it  would  be  to  overthrow 
his  whole  plan.  Bishops  might  be  expected  to  rally 
round  it  who  could  otherwise  be  cajoled  into  the  belief 
that  in  acquitting  Eutyches  they  were  only  '  supporting 
the  Ephesine  fathers  of  431.  But  Eutyches,  probably 
by  arrangement,  came  to  his  rescue.  He  deposed  that 
Flavian  had  entertained  the  legates  at  his  archiepiscopal 
residence,  who  were  thus  in  collusion  with  the  archbishop, 
and  that  therefore  no  harm  ought  to  accrue  to  him  from 
what  they  might  say.  Ignoring  the  point  at  issue, 
Discorus  decided  thereupon  that  the  Acts  of  the  Council 
under  Flavian  in  448  should  first  be  read  and  then 
(though  this  was  never  done)  the  letter  of  the  Bishop  of 
Eome.^ 

When  the  reader  came  to  Eusebius's  accusation  of 
Eutyches  in  448,  in  which  he  had  thought  it  wise,  by 
way  of  barring  any  charge  of  Nestorian  proclivities,  to 
speak  of  the  Nicene  Creed  as  confirmed  at  Ephesus,  the 
Synod  at  once  burst  into  exclamations  of  assent.  The 
bishops  were  really  emphasising  the  decree  of  431  which 
forbade  any  additions  to  the  Creed  and  (though  many  of 
them  without  knowing  it)  were  ignoring  the  Council  of 
381  which  made  the  additions.  The  legate  even  joined  in 
under  a  delusion.  And  when  the  Acts  of  the  Latrocinium 
were  read  at  Chalcedon  and  these  Acts  of  the  Council 
under  Flavian  were  in  consequence  repeated  there,  the 
Synod  of  Chalcedon  burst  into  the  same  expressions  of 
assent.^  We  see  from  this  how  adroitly  Dioscorus  laid 
his  plans.  He  was  now  contriving  to  get  the  Synod  of 
381  slighted  under  cover  of  loyalty  to  the  Council  of  431. 

'  Mansi,  vi.  649.  ^  j^j^^  ggo^ 


158  .  THE   ROBBEE-SYNOD 

Another  difficulty  now  confronted  the  patrons  of 
Eutyches.  In  the  Constantinopolitan  Council  of  448 
Cyril's  letter  on  behalf  of  peace  written  to  John  of  Antioch 
and  his  Synod  had  been  read  by  order  of  Flavian.  As 
they  were  now  reading  at  Ephesus  the  Acts  of  the 
Council  of  448,  Cyril's  letter  had  to  be  read  also.  But 
nothing  could  be  plainer  than  Cyril's  declaration  (in  this 
letter)  of  two  natures  in  Christ  after  the  Incarnation, 
which  Eutyches  denied.  Consequently  Bishop  Eusta- 
thius  rose  and  said  that  Cyril  had  afterwards  expressed 
himself  more  exactly  and  explained  more  carefully  what 
he  meant  in  letters  to  certain  bishops,  in  which  he  had 
said  that  there  was  '  one  nature  of  the  Word  which  was 
incarnate '  and  that  Cyril  had  supported  this  expression 
from  Athanasius.^  In  defending  himself  afterwards  at 
Chalcedon  for  saying  this  of  Cyril,  Eustathius  advanced 
to  the  middle  and  held  out  the  book  with  the  passage 
from  Cyril.  '  One  nature  '  meaning  '  one  Person  con- 
substantial  with  the  Father  '  was  not  an  unorthodox 
expression,  and  Eustathius  was  right  in  asserting  this, 
but  wrong  in  denying  that  our  Lord,  as  Cyril  taught,  had 
also  two  natures,  i.e.  after  the  Incarnation. 

At  length  in  their  reading  of  the  Acts  of  the  Council  of 
448  they  came  to  the  words  in  which  Eusebius  had 
summed  up  his  accusation  against  Eutyches  in  the 
question  :  '  Do  you,  my  lord  Archimandrite,  acknowledge 
two  natures  after  the  Incarnation,  and  do  you  say  that 
Christ  is  consubstantial  with  us,  or  do  you  not  ? ' 
Whereupon  the  bishops  at  Ephesus  cried  out :  '  Take  and 
burn  Eusebius  ;  let  him  be  burnt  alive  ;  let  him  be  cut  in 

'  Mansi,  vi.  676.  Cyril  used  the  word  <f)V(ns  (nature)  here  with  the 
meaning  of  person.  This  is  quite  certain.  His  reference  to  St.  Athana- 
sius  was  a  mistake. 


EUTYCHES   ACQUITTED  159 

two;  as  he  divided  [into  two]  so  let  him  be  himself  divided.' 
Dioscorus  now  put  to  the  Council  the  question  '  Will 
you  tolerate  that  expression,  that  there  are  two  natures 
after  the  Incarnation  ?  '  And  a  cry  arose  '  Anathema  to 
him  who  says  so.'  But  Dioscorus  evidently  saw  that 
the  cry  did  not  arise  from  the  entire  body  of  bishops, 
and  accordingly  he  said  that  he  must  have  their  hands 
raised.  And  again  a  cry  arose  :  '  If  anyone  says  ''  two  " 
\i.e.  two  natures  in  Christ]  let  him  be  anathema.'  And 
every  hand  was  raised.  At  Chalcedon  the  bishops 
deposed  that  only  the  Egyptians  had  said  that  there 
was  but  one  nature  after  the  Incarnation.  The  rest 
merely  held  up  their  hands  in  terror.^ 

When  at  last  they  read  the  Acts  of  the  second 
Council  held  at  Constantinople  in  this  same  year  by  the 
Emperor's  order  for  the  purpose  of  examining  the  Acts  of 
of  the  Synod  under  Flavian,  and  when  Eutyches  now 
repeated  his  already  refuted  accusation  that  those  Acts 
had  been  falsified,  Flavian  could  no  longer  restrain 
himself.  He  rose  and  said  :  '  It  is  false.'  Dioscorus  bade 
him  write  down  whatever  he  might  have  to  say. 
Flavian  protested  that  he  had  not  been  allowed  to  speak 
in  his  own  justification.  On  this  Dioscorus  appealed  to 
two  or  three  individual  bishops  and  then  to  the  whole 
Synod  to  say  if  he  had  prohibited  Flavian  from  speak- 
ing. Flavian  contented  himself  with  saying  that  his 
acts  as  contained  in  the  second,  slightly  revised,  copy  of 
the  documents,  gave  him  no  fear  as  before  God.  He 
had  not,  and  should  not,  be  of  another  mind  about  it. 
Dioscorus  went  on  to  ask  the  bishops  what  each  thought 
of  Eutyches  and  what  each  decided  concerning  him.^ 
They  decided,  one  after  another,   that  Eutyches  should 

'   Mansi,  vi.  737,  739.  -  rl  irepl  avrov  TVTTot. 


160  THE   ROBBER-SYNOD 

be  restored  to  the  priesthood  and  to  the  government  of 
his  monastery,  and  one  after  the  other  spoke  of  adhering 
to  the  faith  of  Nicsea  as  confirmed  by  the  Council  of 
Ephesus.  We  have  only  to  compare  these  signatures 
with  those  at  Chalcedon  respecting  the  Tome  of  Leo,  to 
see  the  significance  of  the  signatures  at  the  Latrocinium. 
The  omission  of  all  allusion  to  the  150  {i.e.  the  fathers  at 
the  Constantinopolitan  Council  of  381)  was  the  measure 
of  Dioscorus's  victory.  The  '  150  fathers  '  disappeared 
at  the  Eobber- Synod,  but  reappeared  in  the  signatures 
at  Chalcedon.  Dioscorus  signed  last  and  said  that  he 
'  confirmed  the  decisions  of  this  holy  and  (Ecumenical 
Synod.'  ^     Thus  Eutyches  was  acquitted. 

'  olKovfjLeviKris  (rvu6Sov  ^■f}<povs,  Mansi,  vi.  861. 


CHAPTER   IV 

THE    LATROCINIUM   OR    '  ROBBER-SYNOD  '   {contijlUect) 

§  2.  The  Deposition  of  Flavian 

They  might  have  stopped  at  the  acquittal  of  Eutyches, 
if  the  object  had  been  simply  to  vindicate  what  they 
considered  the  truth.  But  nothing  would  satisfy 
Dioscorus  short  of  seeing  the  Archbishop  of  Constanti- 
nople at  his  feet.  Accordingly,  after  receiving  a 
deputation  from  the  great  monastery  in  which  Eutyches 
was  Archimandrite,  and  assuring  the  memorialists  that 
they  were  perfectly  orthodox  since  they  held  the  same 
faith  as  Eutyches  (of  whose  removal  from  their  head- 
ship they  had  complained),  and  after  reinstating  them  as 
a  body,  Dioscorus  had  portions  from  the  (Ecumenical 
Council  of  Ephesus  read  out  to  the  assembly.  While 
the  notary  was  reading  the  rule  laid  down  at  that 
Council  that  no  one  was  to  transgress  its  orders  as  to 
new  Creeds,  by  adding  to  the  Nicene,  and  that  if  a  bishop 
or  cleric  did  so,  he  should  be  deprived  of  his  charge, 
Onesiphorus,  one  of  the  bishops,  whispered  to  his  neigh- 
bour that  this  was  aimed  at  Flavian.  His  neighbour 
replied  that  such  madness  was  inconceivable,  and  that  it 

'  Mansi,  vi.  829. 


162  THE   ROBBER-SYNOD 

could  only  concern  Eusebius  of  Dorylaeum.  But  it  was 
only  too  true  that  Dioscorus  was  making  for  the  ruin  of 
Flavian. 

The  long  day  was  now  drawing  to  its  close,  and  the 
wax  candles  were  lighted  for  Vespers,  when  Dioscorus 
said  that  he  presumed  that  all  were  satisfied  with  the 
Nicene  exposition  of  the  faith  as  confirmed,  and  alone 
recognised  as  valid,  by  the  sacred  Council  held  in  this 
city  in  which  they  now  sat,  and  that  anyone  who  should 
say  anything  besides  iirapa)  this  or  think,  or  innovate, 
or  seek  for  anything  beyond,  became  subject  to  con- 
demnation. Bishop  after  bishop  expressed  his  assent  to 
this  principle.  Hilarus,  the  Papal  legate,  took  the  op- 
portunity of  proposing  that  the  Papal  letter  be  read,  and 
they  would  see  that  '  the  Apostolic  See  '  taught  the  same. 
But  Dioscorus  paid  no  heed  to  the  suggestion.  He  had 
now  reached  the  climax  of  his  programme.  He  first 
repeated  in  full  the  Ephesine  condemnation  of  anyone 
who  put  forth  any  exposition  besides  that  of  Nicaea, 
*  which  the  Council  assembled  here  confirmed,  and 
decided  authoritatively  ^  that  it  alone  should  be  held  and 
delivered  in  the  Church,'  '  so  that  it  is  not  lawful  to  put 
forth  another  Creed  besides  this  or  to  seek  for  or  intro- 
duce anything  fresh,  or  to  disturb  (or  initiate)  anything 
concerning  our  holy  religion,'  but  those  who  do  so  '  have 
subjected  themselves  and  do  subject  themselves  mani- 
festly to  penalties,  so  that  if  they  are  bishops  they  should 
be  deposed  from  the  episcopate.'  He  then  asserted  in 
the  name  of  the  Sj^nod  that  Flavian,  Bishop  of  Con- 
stantinople, and  Eusebius,  Bishop  of  Dorylaeum,  had 
clearly  done  this  by  unsettling  and  changing  almost 
everything,  and  so  becoming  the  occasion  of  scandal  and 

*  TUTTcicroao,  Mansi,  vi.  908. 


FLAVIAN   DEPOSED  163 

confusion  to  the  holy  Churches  and  the  orthodox  people 
everywhere,  and  had  subjected  themselves  to  the 
penalties  decreed  by  the  holy  fathers.      Then  he  added : 

'  Accordingly  we,  confirming  what  they  decreed,  have 
decided  that  Flavian  and  Eusebius  are  deprived  of  all 
sacerdotal  and  episcopal  rank.' 

Each  bishop  was  then  called  upon  to  deliver  his 
judgment  in  turn. 

Flavian  now  protested  to  Dioscorus,  '  I  refuse  your 
jurisdiction.'  ^  And  Hilarus,  the  Papal  legate,  said  in 
Latin,  '  It  is  contradicted ' — thus  supporting  the  protest. 

Then  follow  the  signatures  in  the  Acts,  the  Bishops 
of  Jerusalem,  Antioch,  Ephesus,  and  a  number  of  others, 
emphasising  the  reason  of  their  judgment,  viz.  that 
Flavian  and  Eusebius  had  offended  against  the  rule 
which  forbade  any  addition  to,  or  diminution  of,  the  Creed 
of  Nicaea,  confirmed  by  the  Council  of  Ephesus  in  431. ^ 

So  the  Acts  of  the  Synod  ran.  But  at  the  Council  of 
Chalcedon  it  was  deposed  that  this  sentence  and  the 
signatures  had  not  been  managed  in  the  quiet  way  in 
which  the  Acts  of  the  '  Eobber- Synod  '  would  lead  one 
to  suppose. 

When  Dioscorus  proposed  the  sentence  against 
Flavian,  Onesiphorus,  Bishop  of  Iconium,  who,  as  we 
have  seen,  guessed  what  was  coming,  rose  and  knelt 
before  the  throne  on  which  Dioscorus  sat,  and  holding 
his  knees,  in  Eastern  fashion,  passionately  entreated  him 

^  irapairovixai  ere.  Tillemont,  quoted  by  Dr.  Bright  (Roman  See,  p.  272), 
says  that  one  does  not  see  why  Flavian  did  not  say  this  earlier.  But  at 
that  period  it  was  a  common  way  of  appealing,  to  decline  the  jurisdic- 
tion, even  after  the  definitive  sentence.  The  contrary  way  was  intro- 
duced by  Justinian.  Cf.  De  Marca,  De  Concordia  Sacerd.  &c.  Lib.  VII. 
cap.  vii.  §  1. 

-  Mansi,  vi.  909. 

H  2 


164  THE   ROBBER-SYNOD 

not  to  proceed  to  such  an  extreme  measure  as  the  con- 
demnation of  Flavian.  Dioscorus  rose  from  his  throne 
and  standing  on  the  footstool  said,  '  Are  you  stirring  up 
sedition  ?  Fetch  the  Counts.'  A  scene  of  utter  con- 
fusion followed.'  The  military  entered  the  church  with 
clubs  and  swords,  the  proconsul  himself  appeared  with 
chains,  and  presently  Barsumas,^  with  his  monks,  joined 
in  the  scene  of  violence ;  the  writing  tables  of  the 
notaries  were  upset  and  their  papers  blotted,  and 
Dioscorus  with  violent  gestures  bade  the  bishops  sign, 
or  they  would  have  to  reckon  with  him  ;  blows  were 
freely  distributed  as  the  soldiers  and  monks  stood  over 
the  reluctant  bishops,  to  whom  a  blank  paper  was  pre- 
sented for  signature,  to  be  filled  in  afterwards  with  the 
sentence  on  Flavian  and  Eusebius.^  Flavian  himself 
was  beaten  and  kicked,  but  in  the  midst  of  the  indignities 
he  suffered  he  remained  firm,  and,  driven  into  a  corner 
with  Eusebius,  handed  to  the  legates  his  appeal  to  the 
throne  of  Peter.^  He  was  not  destined  to  prosecute  his 
appeal  in  person,  for,  owing  to  the  injuries  he  received,  not 
many  days  elapsed  before  he  passed  to  his  martyr's  crown. 

Dioscorus,  secure  of  the  vote  of  his  Egyptians,  made 
sure  of  the  signatures  of  the  Orientals  first  (the  bishops 
of  the  Antiochene  '  diocese  ')  and  the  Egyptians  signed 
afterwards. 

To  this  unparalleled  scene  of  confusion  and  violence 
we  have,  not  merely  the  witness  of  the  bishops  who  de- 
posed at  the  Council  of  Chalcedon,  but  also,  though  only 
recently  known  to  historians,  two  separate  accounts  by 
Flavian  and  Eusebius  in  their  letters  of  appeal  to  Leo.^ 

»  Mansi,  vi.  832.  -  Ibid.  vii.  68.  ^  Ibid.  vi.  601,  625. 

*  Libellus  Appellatio7iis,  Spicilegium  Casinense,  i.  132. 
5  See  next  chapter. 


FLAVIAN   DEPOSED  165 

It  is  therefore  not  possible  to  doubt  the  truth  of  the 
main  features  of  this  scandalous  exhibition  of  unscrupu- 
lous violence.  '  Where  swords  are,  where  is  the  Synod  ? ' 
said  one  of  the  bishops  at  Chalcedon.  Well  might  many 
of  the  bishops  there,  on  the  recital  of  the  treatment  of 
Flavian,  call  Dioscorus  a  second  Cain,  who  had  murdered 
his  brother  Flavian. 

Domnus,  the  Bishop  of  Antioch,  was  deposed,  as  also 
Theodoret,  of  whom  we  shall  hear  more  hereafter. 
Maximus  was  irregularly  chosen  in  the  place  of  Domnus, 
but  Theodoret's  see  was  left  unfilled.  Ibas  was  also 
deposed  and  his  see  filled  by  Nonnus.  Dorylaeum,  the 
see  of  Eusebius,  was  left  vacant.  This  prelate,  whose 
name  is  so  conspicuous  in  the  history  of  Eutychianism, 
had,  in  spite  of  his  impetuous  zeal,  shrunk  from  pur- 
suing his  accusation  of  Eutyches  at  the  Council  of  Con- 
stantinople in  448,  on  the  ground  that  he  had  everything 
to  lose,  since  Eutyches  had  money  at  his  command  and 
Court  influence,  and  he  himself  had  neither.^  He  had 
now,  to  all  appearance  lost  everything,  except  his  soul : 
Dioscorus,  he  afterwards  informed  the  Emperors  Valen- 
tinian  and  Marcian,  had  '  by  money  and  by  the  brute 
force  of  his  troops,  overwhelmed  the  orthodox  faith  and 
confirmed  the  heresy  of  Eutyches.' 

No  one  knows  what  became  of  Bishop  Julius,  the 
Papal  legate,  in  this  scene  of  disorder,  but  Hilarus,  the 
deacon,  his  co-legate,  fled  for  his  life  and  escaped  to  tell 
the  tale  to  his  master  at  Rome.  St.  Leo  gave  the  Synod 
a  name  by  which  it  has  been  known  ever  since,  viz.  the 
Latrocinium  or  '  Eobber- Synod.' 

But  Dioscorus,  who  was  now  omnipotent  with  the 
Emperor,  took  one  further  step,  which  was  eventually 

*  Mansi,  vi.  736. 


166  THE   ROBBER-SYNOD 

the  chief  ground  of  his  condemnation.  On  one  of  his 
visits  to  the  Court,  inflated  with  pride,  on  the  very  spot 
where  the  318  fathers  promulgated  the  Creed  of  Christen- 
dom— at  Nicaea—he  gave  expression  to  the  inordinate 
notion  which  he  had  conceived  of  his  ecclesiastical  posi- 
tion. One  bishop  in  his  signature  to  the  acquittal  of 
Eutyches  had  called  Dioscorus  the  '  universal  bishop.'  ^ 
He  now  acted  on  the  notion  of  at  least  supremacy  over 
the  whole  Church,  and  in  presence  of  some  ten  bishops, 
excommunicated  St.  Leo  himself,  probably  on  the  ground 
that  he  was  supporting  bishops  excommunicated  by  the 
authority  of  a  universal  Council.  The  Council  of  Chalce- 
don  gave  to  this  act  its  proper  name,  viz.  simply  *  mad- 
ness.' 2 

'  Mansi,  vi.  855. 

2  In  my  first  edition  I  had  supposed,  in  accordance  with  the  mar- 
ginal note  in  Mansi,  vi.  1010,  that  this  took  place  just  before  the  Synod 
of  Chalcedon.  But  I  think  it  more  probable  that  Dioscorus  acted  thus 
in  the  lifetime  of  Theodosius.  It  is,  however,  difficult  to  say  for  certain. 
Cf.  Ballerini,  Leon.  0pp.  ii.  1535.  Quesnel  thinks  it  took  place  at 
Alexandria  {ihid.).     Cf.  also  Tillemont,  xv.  609. 


CHAPTER  V 
Flavian's  appeal  to  rome 

Now  let  us  suppose  that  the  Church  at  this  moment  pos- 
sessed nothing  more  for  the  purposes  of  her  government 
than  a  'first  patriarch,'  primus  inter  pares  in  every 
respect,  jurisdiction  inckided,  with  a  precedency,  a  pre- 
eminence,' and  (in  a  sense  not  formal  or  technical)  '  a 
leadership,'  but  without  '  definite  powers  ' — which  is  the 
highest  Anglican  description  of  the  official  position  of 
the  Holy  See.  Suppose,  too,  that  this  precedency  was 
owing,  not  to  a  divine  institution,  but  to  the  secular 
position  of  the  city  of  Rome,  to  its  having  been 
*  organised  by  Apostolic  hands,'  and  having  been  con- 
nected with  '  the  majesty  of  the  names  of  Peter  and 
Paul,'  and  become  *  famous  for  its  bountiful  generosity ' 
and  for  '  its  traditional  immunity  from  heretical  specu- 
lations.' This  is  the  account  given  by  a  representative 
Anglican  writer,  of  the  '  place  both  lofty  and  distinctive  ' 
'  undoubtedly  assigned  by  ancient  Christianity '  to  the 
see  of  Rome.^ 

Would  such  a  leadership  have  proved  equal  to  the 
crisis  that  had  arisen  in  the  East  under  the  Emperor 

•  Cf.  The  Roman  Claims  tested  by  Antiquity,  p.  8,  by  W.  Bright,  D.D,, 
Canon  of  Christ  Church,  Regius  Professor  of  Ecclesiastical  History. 
1877. 


168  THE  ROBBER-SYNOD 

Theodosius  ?  Could  such  a  leadership  (which  does  not 
include  the  right  of  being  appealed  to  as  a  higher  court) 
have  been  able  to  reverse  the  catastrophe  of  the  Eobber- 
Synod  without  a  miracle  ?  Could  such  a  position,  with 
no  '  definite  powers,'  no  inheritance  of  rule  and  judgment 
from  the  '  Prince  of  Apostles  '  (for  this  is  excluded  by 
that  theory),  have  sufficed  to  enable  even  a  Leo  the 
Great  to  counteract  the  tremendous  success  over  the 
orthodox  faith  which  had  now  been  achieved  at  Ephesus  ? 
Peckham,  Archbishop  of  Canterbury,  complaining  to 
Edward  I.  of  the  conflicts  that  had  arisen  in  England 
between  the  Church  and  State,  says  that  nothing  would 
avail  to  set  things  right  except  that  state  of  things  in 
which  Catholic  emperors  bent  before  (1)  the  decrees  of 
the  Sovereign  Pontiffs,  (2)  the  statutes  of  Councils,  (3) 
and  the  sanctions  of  the  orthodox  Fathers.  And  in 
regard  to  the  first  he  says,  *  the  sovereign  Lord  of  all 
gave  authority  to  the  decrees  of  the  Sovereign  Pontiffs, 
when  He  said  to  Peter  in  the  Gospel  of  St.  Matthew, 
"  Whatsoever  thou  shalt  bind  on  earth  shall  be  bound  in 
heaven." '  ^  Could  anything  short  of  this  inherited 
privilege  of  Peter,  which  was  the  teaching  of  St.  Anselm 
and  every  other  Archbishop  of  Canterbury,  and  which  is 
the  distinctive  feature  of  Catholic  and  Eoman  teaching 
at  this  hour,  have  been  adequate  to  deal  with  the  state 
of  things  that  had  now  arisen  in  the  East  ? 

But,  putting  aside  a  priori  considerations,  let  us  ask, 
On  what  did  St.  Leo  actually  rely  ?  He  had  already 
expounded  the  faith  which  he  '  desired  to  be  implanted 
in  the  hearts  of  all  the  faithful,'  as  he  told  the  clergy  of 
Constantinople.  He  had  already  given  an  *  interpretatio 
benigna '  to  the  Emperor's  desire  for  a  Council  as  neces- 

'  Ep.  199 :  Registrimi  Epistolarum,  ed.  C.  T.  Martin  (1882),  i.  240. 


FLAVIAN'S   APPEAL  169 

sarily  involving  the  wish  to  have  Peter's  answer 
at  Caesarea  Philippi  explained  by  Peter  himself  {i.e. 
through  his  see),  as  he  told  the  Synod  itself ;  he 
had  reviewed  and  revised  the  Acts  of  a  previous  Synod 
of  Constantinople,  and  laid  down  the  conditions  of 
Eutyches's  restoration,  and,  in  his  letter  to  the  Empress, 
he  had  assumed,  on  the  ground  of  his  occupying  '  the 
Apostolic  See,'  the  office  of  absolver  of  the  heretic  in  case 
he  repented.  But  he  had  now  to  lift  up  the  fallen  East. 
He  had  the  Emperor  against  him  ;  the  Patriarch  of 
Alexandria  was  his  unscrupulous  foe,  a  new  patriarch 
had  been  elected  to  Antioch,  the  Bishop  of  Jerusalem 
had  sided  with  the  enemies  of  the  faith,  and  but  one 
bishop,  besides  his  own  legate,  had  dared  to  lift  up  his 
voice  in  favour  of  the  murdered  archbishop. 

On  what,  then,  did  Leo  rely  in  dealing  with  bishops, 
patriarchs,  and  an  Eastern  Emperor  ?  His  position  as 
Bishop  of  Old  Eome  could  avail  him  nothing,  for  Theo- 
dosius  was  Emperor  of  New  Eome.  His  position  as 
occupant  of  an  Apostolic  See  would  not  suffice :  the 
Bishop  of  Jerusalem  was  his  equal  there,  to  say  nothing 
of  the  Bishop  of  Antioch.  The  traditional  orthodoxy  of 
Rome  would  be  of  no  use  to  him  here  ;  the  East  had 
gone  in  for  its  own  opinion.  He  had  with  him  the 
hearts  of  many,  but  the  voices  of  few,  while  the 
Emperor  professed  to  believe  in  an  Eastern  Council  of 
bishops  under  his  own  royal  supremacy.  What  right 
had  Leo  to  intervene  at  all  ? 

The  ground  that  he  did  assume  was  his  position  of 
Sovereign  Pontilf.  He  knew  well  that  though  they 
might  rebel  against  it,  they  could  not  deny  it.  He  knew 
that  the  East  to  a  man  believed  St.  Peter  to  be  '  the 
Prince  and  head  of  the  Apostles,'  and  that  Peter  '  lives 


170  THE  ROBBER-SYNOD 

and  exercises  judgment  in  his  successors.'  ^  And  on 
this  belief  he  acted  throughout.  And  in  the  whole 
course  of  the  Council  of  Chalcedon  not  a  single  protest 
was  raised  against  the  assumption  made  to  Emperor, 
Empress,  to  the  Synod,  and  to  individual  bishops — made 
publicly  and  given  as  the  ground  of  Leo's  action  :  there 
was,  I  say,  not  a  solitary  protest  against  the  perpetual 
assumption  on  the  part  of  the  Pontiff  that  he  was  the 
successor  of  St.  Peter,  and  that  as  such  he  had  the 
power  of  the  keys,  not  exclusively,  but  pre-eminently  ; 
with  a  precedence,  not  of  honour  merely,  but  of  spiritual 
jurisdiction  over  the  entire  Church  of  God.  '  It  is  idle  ' 
(so  we  are  told)  '  to  bid  us  acknowledge  her  bishop '  (i.e. 
the  Bishop  of  Eome)  '  as  first  patriarch,  when  he  will 
not  be  acknowledged  as  anything  short  of  a  Supreme 
Pontiff.'  ^  But  the  history  of  Eutychianism  and  the 
Council  of  Chalcedon  are  distinct  in  their  evidence  to 
the  truth  that  the  Pope  was  held  to  be  the  successor  of 
the  Prince  of  the  Apostles,  and  as  such  was,  as  St. 
Cyril  called  Celestine,  *  the  archbishop  of  the  universal 
Church.'  Leo,  in  leaning  on  his  inherited  prerogative, 
had  the  conscience  of  the  Church  with  him,  as  will  now 
be  seen. 

Flavian  upon  his  condemnation  at  Ephesus  had 
handed  to  the  legates  an  appeal  to  Rome.  He  appealed 
to  '  the  Apostolic  See : '  so  Liberatus,  in  his  Breviarium, 
states  after  inspecting  the  documents.  And  the  Western 
Emperor,  Valentinian,  distinctly  states  the  same  in  his 
letter  to  Theodosius  :  '  the  Bishop  of  Constantinople 
appealed  to  him  (viz.  the  Bishop  of  Rome)  by  formal 
notice.'  De  Marca,  whose  theories  would  not  incline 
him  to  emphasise  this,  says  :  *  It  is  clearly  proved  by 

*  Cf.  p.  81.  ^  Roman  Claims,  &c.,  by  Dr.  Bright. 


FLAVIAN'S   APPEAL  171 

Valentinian's  letter  that  Flavian  appealed  to  Pope  Leo  ; ' 
and  again,  '  so  as  that  he  appealed  to  the  Koman  Pontiff 
alone.' 

But  in  such  matters  it  was  the  invariable  custom  of 
the  Koman  Pontiff  to  act  in  concert  with  the  Roman  Synod. 
A  synodical  declaration  was  a  more  formal  utterance ; 
it  was  like  the  emphasis  to  speech,  as  when  a  man 
gathers  up  his  whole  self  for  a  special  effort.  It  was  a 
kind  of  proclamation  that  the  utterance  was  formal.  It 
was  not  indeed  a  necessary  means  of  signifying  that  the 
sentence  thus  delivered  was,  so  to  speak,  ex  cathedra, 
for  the  Tome  itself  was  not  a  synodical  utterance,  but  it 
was  the  usual  way  in  which  at  that  time  the  Pontiff 
dealt  with  serious  cases  such  as  the  deposition  or  rein- 
statement of  bishops.  It  was  a  means  of  bringing  into 
play  that  consultative  function  of  the  Episcopate  which 
the  Vatican  Council  spoke  of  as  included  in  the  normal 
action  of  the  Papacy.  The  authority  of  the  Roman 
Synod  emanated  from  its  President  as  successor  of  Peter  ; 
but  its  unanimity  was  a  factor  in  the  impressiveness  of 
the  Papal  judgment.  St.  Leo  himself  speaks  of  certain 
writings  of  his  as  sent  to  Constantinople,  '  not  only  with 
the  authority  of  the  Apostolic  See,  but  also  with  the 
unanimity  of  the  holy  Synod  which  had  assented  in 
great  numbers.'  The  authority  was  that  of  the  Holy  See ; 
the  unanimity  of  the  Synod  was  an  additional  advantage.^ 

And  so  the  Empress  Placidia,  writing  from  Rome, 
says   that   Flavian   had   sent   a  formal  notice  to   the 

'  Dr.  Bright  (Roman  See,  p.  177)  quotes  these  words  in  Latin,  italicising 
the  words  '  not  only  '  (non  solum)  and  *  but  also  '  (sed  etiam),  ignoring 
the  vital  distinction  between  '  authority  '  and  *  unanimity.'  St.  Leo  does 
not  say  that  his  writings  went  forth  '  not  only  by  the  authority  of  the 
Apostolic  See,  hiU  also  by  that  of  the  Synod.'     The  authority  was  his. 


172  THE   EOBBER-SYNOD 

Apostolic  See  '  and  to  all  the  bishops  of  these  parts,' 
which  was  perfectly  true.  But  '  these  parts '  did  not 
mean  that  all  the  bishops  of  the  West  were  to  be  con- 
sulted, but  the  bishops  round  about  Eome  and  others 
happening  to  be  in  Eome,  where  the  Empress  was. 
These  bishops  did  indeed  represent  the  West,  but  only 
as  the  head  represents  the  body  ;  they  did  so,  not 
because  of  any  delegation,  but  because  they  were  as  it 
were  the  Cabinet  Council  of  the  Supreme  Pontiff.  How 
else  could  they  exercise  authority  over  the  East  ?  How 
indeed  could  a  comparatively  few — for  the  numbers  of 
which  Leo  speaks  {frequens  convenerat)  are  to  be  com- 
pared with  the  ordinary  meetings,  not  with  the  numbers 
of  the  entire  West  —  how  could  this  comparative  handful 
of  itself,  and  without  any  express  delegation,  represent  the 
West  as  it  did,  except  from  the  fact  that  the  head  was  there  ? 
We  have,  however,  irrefragable  evidence  in  this  case 
that  '  these  parts  '  are  not  the  entire  West,  except  so  far 
as  the  West  was  involved  in  the  acts  of  the  Boman 
Synod,  for  Hilarus,  in  writing  to  the  Empress  Pulcheria, 
speaks  of  the  Koman  Synod  which  responded  to  Flavian's 
appeal,  as  '  the  whole  West '  ;  and  again,  St.  Leo,  writing 
to  Theodosius,  speaks  of  the  tears  of  *  all  the  Churches  in 
our  parts,'  by  which  he  certainly  did  not  mean  the  entire 
West,  for  his  letter  is  headed  '  Leo,  Bishop,  and  the  holy 
Synod  which  met  in  the  city  of  Eome.'  '^  When,  there- 
fore, Galla  Placidia  spoke  of  Flavian's  having  written  '  to 
all  the  bishops  of  these  parts  '  she  did  not  mean  that 
the  entire  West  was  to  be  gathered  together  by  represen- 

'  Leon.  Ep.  46. 

2  Ep.  43.  The  '  Kesident  Synod  '  of  Constantinople  was  the  counter- 
part of  the  Eoman  Synod.  Only  the  Eoman  Synod  was  constitutional, 
because  of  the  position  of  its  President,  the  successor  of  Peter. 


FLAVIAN'S   APPEAL  173 

tation,  but  that  the  appeal  was  to  the  Pope  in  his 
Eoman  Synod  which  was  the  normal  representative  of 
the  West.  The  appeal  was  to  the  successor  of  Peter 
as  such,  acting  as  he  did  in  such  cases  with  the  solemnity 
of  a  court  composed  of  such  bishops  as  could  be  got 
together  at  the  time.  Nothing  else  will  suit  the  ex- 
pressions used  and  the  acts  that  followed. 

Such  was  the  state  of  the  argument  before  a  valuable 
discovery  was  made  which  has  set  the  seal  to  the  position 
maintained  by  the  Ballerini  and  Mansi,  as  against 
Quesnel  and  others,  whom  Dr.  Bright  has  followed.  The 
Prior  of  the  Archives  at  Monte  Cassino  (Dom  Ambrogio 
Amelli)  had  the  good  fortune  to  discover  in  the  Archives 
at  No  vara  a  Latin  copy  of  the  letters  written  to  Rome  by 
Flavian  and  Eusebius.  Both  letters  are  of  great  interest 
as  containing  two  separate  accounts  of  the  Robber- Synod 
from  those  most  nearly  concerned  in  it,  written  immedi- 
ately after  its  close,  if  not,  indeed,  in  part  during  its 
proceedings.^ 

We  gather  from  Flavian's  letter  that  Dioscorus  had 


*  These  letters  have  been  inserted  by  Mommsen  in  his  I^eues  Archiv, 
xi.  362.  They  are  referred  to  by  Duchesne  in  his  Eglises  s&paries, 
p.  202,  and  by  Harnack,  in  his  Dogmengeschichte,  on  the  '  Eutychian 
Controversy.'  Amelli  gives  good  reasons  for  supposing  that  they  be- 
longed to  Dionysius  Exiguus,  who  is  known  to  have  been  compiling 
materials  for  a  History  of  the  Council  of  Chalcedon.  Cf.  S.  Leone 
Magno  e  V  Oriente,  p.  24  (Monte  Cassino,  Tipo-Litografia  Casinense, 
189-1).  The  letters  in  question  have  also  been  inserted  in  the  Spicilegium 
Casinense,  tom.  i.  (1893),  with  Mommsen's  emendations.  This  may  be 
seen  in  the  British  Museum.  I  had  not  had  the  advantage  of  seeing  it 
when  I  published  the  first  edition  of  this  book.  Christianus  Lupus 
deplored  the  loss  of  this  letter  of  Flavian's,  which  he  says  would  have 
stopped  OS  loquentium  iniqua,  by  which  he  meant  Quesnel  and  his  fol- 
lowers. It  is  satisfactory  to  find  that  the  arguments  of  the  Ballerini 
and  Mansi  {Nat.  Alex.  H.  E.  vol.ix.)  are  supported  by  the  discovery. 


174  THE   ROBBER-SYNOD 

conceived  an  implacable  animosity  against  him  from  the 
day  of  his  consecration  to  the  see  of  Constantinople,  and 
had  not  sent  him  the  customary  letters  on  his  appoint- 
ment to  that  see.  But  Flavian  says  that  notwithstand- 
ing this  he  had  *  obeyed '  Dioscorus  '  in  everything.'  The 
third  canon  of  Constantinople  does  not  seem  to  have 
influenced  their  respective  dealings.  But  the  interest  of 
Flavian's  letter  centres  in  the  expressions  he  uses  in 
appealing  to  Eome.  Did  he  appeal  to  Eome  as  to  the 
see  of  the  '  first  Patriarch  '  or  as  the  see  of  the  Apostle 
Peter  ? 

His  letter  is  addressed  to  Leo  himself  in  person.  He 
tells  him  how  Dioscorus  acquitted  Eutyches,  and  did  not 
allow  '  the  letter  of  your  Holiness  to  be  read,  though  it 
suffices  for  the  confirmation  of  the  faith  of  the  Fathers.' 
He  then  speaks  of  '  the  unjust  sentence  which  he  issued 
against  me  according  to  his  own  good  pleasure,  while  I 
appealed  to  the  throne  of  the  Apostolic  See  of  Peter  the 
Prince  of  the  Apostles  and  the  universal  blessed  Synod 
which  is  under  your  Holiness.'  These  last  words  clearly 
do  not  refer  to  an  '  (Ecumenical '  Synod,  both  by  reason 
of  the  expression '  which  is  under  your  Holiness,'  evidently 
referring  to  something  in  regular  action,  and  because 
of  the  sequel.  They  can  only  refer  to  the  Eoman  Synod 
as  constitutionally  representing  the  West,^  as,  in  fact, 
its  normal  exponent. 

Flavian  then  proceeds   to  describe    the    scene    of 

>  The  contention  of  the  Ballerini  that  Flavian  did  not  appeal  to  a 
Genera]  Council  even  of  the  West  cannot  be  maintained  since  the  dis- 
covery of  this  letter.  But  their  main  contention  is  supported  by  the 
letter.  A  really  representative  Council  of  the  West  was  never  sum- 
moned. Any  fair  number  of  bishops  sufficed,  as  long  as  the  Holy  See 
was  satisfied. 


FLAVIAN'S   APPEAL  175 

ruffianly  violence  which  took  place.  His  account  con- 
firms what  has  been  already  described.  '  A  crowd  of 
the  military  surrounded  me  and,  when  I  was  desirous  of 
taking  refuge  at  the  altar,  would  not  allow  me,  but  did 
its  best  to  turn  me  out  of  the  church.  In  the  midst  of  a 
fearful  tumult,  I  managed  with  difficulty  to  get  to  a 
corner  of  the  church  and  to  remain  there  with  those 
who  were  with  me.  But  even  this  I  could  not  do  without 
being  carefully  watched,  lest  I  should  manage  to  report 
to  you  all  the  ills  I  suffered.' 

The  archbishop  then  proceeds  to  formulate  his  prayer 
to  his  Holiness.  It  was,  first,  to  busy  himself  in  the 
cause  of  the  faith,  '  which  has  perished  through  licence.' 
Next,  to  see  after  the  overthrow  of  ecclesiastical  constitu- 
tions and  simply  to  narrate  the  whole  matter  both  to  the 
people  who  are  m  a  majority,  '  and  also  to  teach  the 
Emperor  by  a  suitable  letter ;  moreover  to  write  to  the 
clergy  of  the  holy  Church  of  Constantinople  and  to  the 
monks  ;  also  to  Juvenal,  the  Bishop  of  Jerusalem  '  (who 
had  taken  a  prominent  part  in  the  last  scene)  '  and  to 
Thalassius  of  Caesarea  '  (who  had  been  appointed  by  the 
Emperor  a  coadjutor  to  Dioscorus),  '  to  Stephen,  the 
Bishop  of  Ephesus  '  (where  the  disaster  occurred), '  and  to 
Eusebius  of  Ancyra  and  Cyrus  of  Aphrodisia  '  (prominent 
members  in  the  iniquitous  scene),  'and  to  the  rest  of  the 
holy  bishops  who  consented  to  the  unrighteous  sentence 
against  me,  and  to  Dioscorus,  who  held  the  principal 
authority  in  the  holy  Synod  at  Ephesus.' 

This  was  certainly  not  a  programme  to  be  set  before 
a  *  first  Patriarch  '  with  no  '  definite  powers '  but  a  mere 
precedency  of  honour  without  effective  jurisdiction. 
But  Flavian  entreats  for  more  in  addition  to  this.     He 


176  THE   EOBBER-SYNOD 

asks  Leo  '  to  issue  a  decree  ^  which  God  will  inspire  your 
mind  to  frame,  so  that  a  Synod  both  of  the  West  and 
of  the  East  being  held,  a  like  faith  may  be  everywhere 
preached,  so  that  the  statutes  of  the  Fathers  may  prevail, 
that  all  that  has  been  done  may  be  rendered  void — 
things  done  somehow,  as  they  have  been,  unrighteously 
and  in  the  shade,  and  not  without  levity ;  and  [so]  to 
apply  healing  to  this  horrible  wound  which  has  spread 
serpent-like  almost  through  the  whole  world.' 

Flavian  concludes  with  saying  that  the  bishops  who 
were  forced  into  signing  against  him  were  but  few — a 
statement  which  conflicts  with  the  records  of  the  Council. 
But,  as  Dom  Amelli  points  out,  Flavian  would  not  be 
aware  of  what  was  done  outside  his  own  immediate  pur- 
view and  after  he  had  escaped  from  the  church.^ 

At  the  same  time,  Eusebius,  Bishop  of  Dorylseum, 
appealed  to  Leo  to  reverse  his  deposition  by  Dioscorus 
and  his  Synod.  Until  the  discovery  of  his  letter  by 
Amelli,  this  was  a  fact  unknown  to  historians  of  the 
Councils.  He  forms  another  witness  to  the  ruffianly 
treatment  of  the  bishops  at  the  Latrocinium  by  Dioscorus 
and  his  associates,  and  he  adds  a  few  touches  to  the 
picture,  just  as  an  independent  witness  naturally  would. 
It  seems  that  being  forbidden  to  enter  the  Synod, 
although  St.  Leo  had  ordered  him  to  be  admitted,  he 
was  nevertheless  incarcerated  in  some  dark  place 
in  the  church,  guarded  by  soldiers.  Dioscorus, 
he  says,  threatened  to  have  some  of  the  bishops 
thrown  into  the  sea  if  they  ventured  to  dispute  his 
ruling.      No   one   was  allowed   to   approach   Eusebius, 

'  Dareformavi :  the  word  used  almost  always  (when  decretum  is  not 
used)  to  translate  tvttos,  a  decree.     Cf.  supra,  p.  21. 
2  S.  Leone  Magno  e  V  Oriente,  p.  45. 


FLAVIAN'S   APPEAL  177 

though  several  bishops  had  signified  their  willingness  to 
solace  him  in  his  '  passion.'  The  bishops'  signatures 
were  obtained  by  violence,  '  as  they  know  who  were  sent 
by  your  Holiness  in  the  place  of  your  Blessedness,  to 
whom  I  presented  the  formal  notice  {lihellos)  of  my 
appeal,  in  which  I  have  demanded  the  cognisance  of  your 
See.'  There  can  be  no  question,  therefore,  to  whom 
Eusebius  appealed. 

We  must,  however,  notice  the  reason  of  his  appeal  to 
the  Holy  See.  In  the  beginning  of  his  letter,  addressed 
to  '  the  holy  and  most  blessed  Father  and  Archbishop 
Leo,'  he  says  :  '  The  Apostolic  throne  has  been  wont 
from  the  heginning  to  defend  those  w4io  are  sufiering 
injustice,  to  assist  those  who  have  been  the  prey  of 
unavoidable  factions,  and  to  raise  up  those  who  lie  on 
the  ground,  according  to  the  possibility  [power  of  so 
doing]  which  you  possess,  and  the  compassion  which 
you  have  towards  all  men.  The  reason  is  that  you  have 
a  right  understanding,  and  preserve  the  faith  towards 
our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  unshaken,  and  exercise  charity 
without  dissembling  towards  all  the  brethren  and  all 
who  call  on  the  name  of  Christ.  Wherefore  I,  being 
entangled  in  unavoidable  [embarrassments],  fly  to  the 
only  refuge,  after  the  help  of  God,  in  my  affliction  and 
extremity,  desiring  to  find  a  release  from  the  ills  that 
have  befallen  me.' 

His  only  refuge  was  '  the  Apostolic  throne  '  with  its 
inerrancy  in  the  faith  and  traditional  charity  towards 
the  whole  Christian  brotherhood.  After  describing,  as 
we  have  already  seen,  the  catastrophe  of  the  Latro- 
cinium,  and  stating  the  formal  nature  of  his  appeal  '  to 
your  See,'  he  says :  *  I  entreat  your  Blessedness, 
touching  your  knees  at  least  in  word  if  not  with  my 

N 


178  THE   ROBBER-SYNOD 

hand,^  pronounce  the  reversal  {evacuatio),  and  nullity 
of  any  unjust  condemnation  by  the  most  religious 
Dioscorus,  and  of  their  decree,  who  were  forced  into 
consenting  to  his  will,  and  give  me  back  the  dignity  of 
my  episcopate,  and  communion  with  yourself,  by  letters 
from  you  to  my  lowliness,  bestowing  on  me  my  rank 
and  communion  ' — i.e.  the  rank  of  bishop,  and  com- 
munion with  the  Apostolic  See. 

The  whole  of  the  letter  is  in  the  plural  number,  but 
the  title  and  the  expressions  *  your  See '  and  '  the 
Apostolic  throne  '  prove  that  it  is  the  '  majestic  plural,' 
not  a  plurality  of  persons  addressed.^ 

It  is  impossible  not  to  see  in  these  two  letters  a 
unique  position  of  authority  assigned  to  Eome  as  *  the 
Apostolic  throne,'  or,  as  Flavian  expresses  himself,  '  the 
throne  of  the  Apostolic  See  of  Peter,  the  Prince  of  the 
Apostles,'  written,  too,  from  Ephesus,  where  it  had  been 
said  in  the  (Ecumenical  Council  of  431  that  '  Peter  .  .  . 
the  Prince  of  the  Apostles  .  .  .  lives  and  exercises  judg- 
ment in  his  successors.'  The  position  of  Leo  clearly  in 
Flavian's  mind  resulted,  not  from  the  city,  but  from  the 
position  of  Peter  in  the  Apostolic  College.  He  says  that 
the  Tome  of  Leo  (his  letter  to  Flavian  himself)  '■  suffices 
for  the  confirmation  of  the  faith.'  It  was  already 
authoritative.  He  treats  the  Apostolic  See  as  the  proper 
court  of  appeal  for  an  unjustly  deposed  Archbishop  of 
Constantinople  exercising  its  authority  in  a  Synod 
'  under '   Leo,   as  in   the   case  of  injured   bishops  the 


*  Just  as,  in  Eastern  fashion,  Onesiphorus  and  others  knelt  at 
Dioscorus's  knees  in  the  Synod,  entreating  him  not  to  depose  Flavian. 

2  The  letter  is  said,  in  a  footnote  in  another  hand,  to  have  been  sent 
by  Chrysippus  and  Constantine,  names  which  occur  in  the  Acts  (Mansi, 
vi.  574,  719,  744,  1062  ;  cf.  Amelli,  Leone  Magno,  p.  49). 


FLAVIAN'S   APPEAL  179 

Pontiffs  invariably  did.  Then  in  regard  to  the  breaches 
of  the  ecclesiastical  order  that  had  taken  place,  he  looks 
to  Leo  to  communicate  with  his  own  (Flavian's)  flock, 
with  the  Emperor,  and  with  those  Eastern  bishops  whose 
conduct  had  been  so  unseemly  and  so  cowardly,  and 
with  Dioscorus  himself.  Further,  he  hopes  that  Leo, 
besides  respecting  this  appeal  to  his  see  and  the  Synod 
under  him,  will  issue  an  authoritative  decree,  which,  by 
means  of  a  Council,  not  merely  of  the  West,  but  West 
and  East  together,  a  truly  (Ecumenical  Council,  will 
secure  unanimity  of  teaching  throughout  the  world,  and 
the  rest  of  the  bishops  deposed  will  have  their  cases 
investigated,  and  all  the  injustice  done  will  be  rectified. 
He  does  not  ask  Leo  to  act  despotically,  but  he  does  ask 
for  an  exercise  of  authority  ;  while  Eusebius  asks  Leo 
simply  to  restore  him  to  his  position  of  Bishop.  It 
must  be  remembered  that  the  Catholic  thesis,  while  it 
maintains  that  the  successor  of  St.  Peter  is  more  than  a 
'  first  Patriarch,'  does  not  maintain  that  he  is  by  virtue 
of  his  office  an  absolute  ruler.  He  is  Supreme  Pontiff, 
and  no  cause  like  that  of  Flavian's  has  run  its  course  to 
its  end  until  Eome  has  spoken  her  word — whether  with 
or  without  the  aid  of  an  (Ecumenical  Synod  depends  on 
the  judgment  of  the  Sovereign  Pontiff'  himself.  As  a 
matter  of  fact,  Leo's  action  in  this  case  followed  exactly 
on  the  lines  proposed  by  Flavian,  i.e.  first  his  Synodical 
judgment  and  then  a  General  Council.^ 

Theodoret  also  appealed,  a  short  time  afterwards,  to 

'  On  the  mistake  of  supposing  that  the  rule  of  the  Sovereign  Pontiff 
is  absolute,  in  the  sense  of  being  uncontrolled  by  contract,  by  usage  and 
by  rights,  see  Hettinger  on  The  Siq^remacy  of  the  Apostolic  See  in  the 
Church,  i.  27.  Pius  IX.  protested  against  the  idea ;  and  Bellarmine 
had  already  said  distinctly  that  the  one  absolutely  free  ruler  in  the 
Church  is  Christ  (De  Bom.  Pont.  iii.  19). 

N  2 


180  THE   ROBBER-SYNOD 

Leo  and  his  Council,  giving  as  his  authority  the 
precedent  of  St.  Paul.  *  If  Paul,  the  herald  of  the  truth, 
the  trumpet  of  the  Spirit,  ran  to  the  great  Peter  .  .  . 
much  more  do  we  in  our  littleness  run  to  your  Apostolic 
throne,  that  from  you  we  may  receive  healing  for  the 
wounds  of  the  Church.'  *  But  his  case  will  be  dealt  with 
in  connection  with  the  Council  of  Chalcedon  itself. 

'  Ep.  113. 


CHAPTEK   VI 

LEO    PROPOSES,    THEODOSIUS    REFUSES,    A    COUNCIL 

On  September  29,  a.d.  449,  St.  Leo  was  holding  one  of 
his  customary  annual  Synods  of  the  suburbicarian  sees 
and  of  the  bishops  who  happened  to  be  in  Eome, 
assembled  to  celebrate  the  anniversary  of  his  own 
birthday  and  to  conduct  the  affairs  of  the  Church,  when 
Hilarus,  the  deacon  and  legate,  arrived  from  Ephesus 
with  the  sad  tidings  of  the  Eobber-Council.  The  Eoman 
Synod  was  accordingly  prolonged  to  consider  what  steps 
should  be  taken  to  retrieve  the  disaster  which  had 
befallen  the  true  faith.  They  had  now  before  them  the 
appeals  of  Flavian  and  Eusebius.  They  knew  nothing 
as  yet,  it  would  seem,  of  the  death  of  Flavian  or  the 
election  of  a  successor  to  the  see.  Hilarus  had  escaped 
at  the  close  of  the  first  session,  having  refused  to  attend 
a  second.  They  only  knew  of  the  triumph  of  heresy  in 
a  Council  of  bishops  which  had  received  St.  Leo's  acqui- 
escence on  the  understanding  that  it  met  to  promulgate 
the  condemnation  of  Eutyches,  if  he  did  not  withdraw 
his  heretical  propositions,  and  to  absolve  him  by  the 
authority  of  the  Holy  See,  if  he  did.^ 

St.  Leo  in  concert  with  his  bishops  at  once  repudi- 
ated the  Council  at  Ephesus,  so  that  Hilarus,  who  was 

'  Cf.  supra,  p.  143, 


182  THE   ROBBER-SYNOD 

present,  could  write  to  the  Empress  Pulcheria  saying 
*that  everything  done  in  Ephesus  by  Dioscorus  un- 
canonically  and  tumultuously  and  through  worldly  hate, 
is  condemned  by  the  aforesaid  Pope  with  the  whole 
Western  Council.'  This  was  the  first  step  in  the  pro- 
gramme proposed  by  St.  Flavian,  who  had  appealed  to 
'  the  throne  of  Peter  and  the  universal  Council  which  is 
under  your  Holiness.'  He  had  originally  declared  that 
the  exercise  of  Leo's  authority  would  supersede  the 
necessity  of  a  General  Council  in  the  East ;  he  had 
now  appealed  to  that  authority,  and  it  had  nullified  his 
deposition. 

A  few  weeks  ^  after  Hilarus  brought  the  tidings  of 
the  catastrophe  at  Ephesus,  and  after  the  whole  matter 
had  been  well  weighed  in  Synod,  the  Pope  wrote  to  the 
Emperor  Theodosius  precisely  on  the  lines  suggested  by 
St.  Flavian  in  his  appeal  to  the  Holy  See.  Leo 
expressed  his  intense  disappointment  at  the  result  of  the 
Synod  at  Ephesus  and  his  confidence  that  all  would 
have  been  well  with  the  bishops  there,  and  there  would 
have  been  no  doctrinal  innovation,^  if  only  his  legates 
had  been  allowed  to  read  his  letter  ^  to  the  Synod  or  that 
to  Flavian,  '  for  the  tumult  would  have  been  so  quieted 
by  the  manifestation  which,  inspired  divinely  {divinitus 
inspiratam),  we  have  received  and  hold,  that  neither 
unskilfulness  would  have  pursued  its  folly  '  (in  allusion 
to   Eutyches),   '  nor  rivalry  '   (in  allusion  to  Dioscorus 

'  For  the  date  see  Lecniis  0pp.  Ep.  liv.  and  Diss,  de  Ep.  deperd. 
n.  38. 

2  jWTjSey  ^vvaffQai  KaivoTOixilffQai. 

^  These  particular  letters  were  not  those  of  the  Roman  Synod,  They 
were  Ep.  33  and  Ep.  28  (Ball.)  ;  see  also  Ep.  45,  in  which  the  same 
letters  are  spoken  of  as  the  teaching  of  '  the  See  of  the  blessed  Apostle 
Peter.' 


A   COUNCIL   URGED  183 

against  Constantinople)  'have  had  the  opportunity  of 
doing  further  harm.'  After  speaking  of  the  protest  of 
his  legates  against  what  was  dogmatically  proclaimed,^ 
saying,  as  they  did,  *  that  the  Apostolic  See  could  never 
accept  it,'  the  Pope  in  the  most  touching  terms  urges 
the  Emperor  to  look  to  God  and  think  of  the  judgment- 
seat  of  Christ.  *  Behold  I,  0  most  Christian  and 
worshipful  Emperor,  with  my  fellow  bishops  .  .  .  entreat 
you  in  presence  of  the  inseparable  Trinity  of  the  one  God, 
Which  is  the  Guardian  and  author  of  your  empire,  and 
in  presence  of  Christ's  holy  Angels,  that  you  would  order 
that  all  things  should  remain  in  the  same  state  in  which 
they  were  before  any  judgment '  [had  been  given].^ 

He  now  tells  the  Emperor  that  '  all  the  Churches  of 
our  regions,  all  the  bishops,  entreat  your  Clemency  that 
you  would  order  a  General  Synod  to  be  assembled  in 
Italy.'  Two  reasons  are  given  for  this :  first,  the 
protest  of  the  legates  at  the  Latrocinium  itself,  and 
secondly,  the  appeal  of  Flavian.      Each  of  these  pre- 

1  5oyidari(T9ev.  The  Greek,  as  we  have  it,  is  older  than  the  Latin.  It 
dates  from  two  or  three  years  only  later  than  the  sending  of  the 
letter. 

2  It  seems  necessary  to  protest  against  the  absurd  cavil  of  Bishop 
Andrewes,  as  it  is  reproduced  by  Dr.  Bright  {Roman  See,  p.  178),  that 
there  is  '  no  mandate  here '  from  the  Pope  ;  as  if  Leo  could  not  be 
Supreme  Pontiff  because  he  entreated  the  Emperor  to  do  his  duty.  No 
one  who  has  read  it  will  easily  forget  the  Conference  of  the  Pastor 
Adolphe  Monod  on  'the  tears  of  St.  Paul.'  St.  Leo  occupied  the 
Apostolic  throne,  and  nothing  better  befitted  the  successor  of  an 
Apostle  than  tears  and  supplications  at  a  crisis  like  this.  Leo  could  be 
true  to  his  name  when  occasion  called  for  it,  as  in  the  presence  of 
Attila ;  but  when  the  truth  of  the  Incarnation  was  at  stake,  and  a 
Christian  Emperor  was  in  danger  of  losing  his  soul,  he  could  be  the 
embodiment  of  tenderness.  When  the  bishops  at  Chalcedon  use  the 
same  word  of  entreaty  (Trapo/coAoC^ev)  to  Leo,  Dr.  Bright  translates  it 
'  request '  {Roma7i  See,  p.  205).     Cf.  infra,  p.  373. 


184  THE   ROBBEE-SYNOD 

vented  the  Synod  at  Ephesus  from  being  final.  The 
object  of  the  new  Council  was  to  be  the  overthrow  of 
heresy  and  the  healing  of  schism.  St.  Leo  then  adopts 
a  slightly  altered  tone  and  says  that  in  point  of  fact  to 
ask  this  has  become  '  necessary ' ;  *  the  decrees  of  the 
canons  of  Nicaea,  which  have  been  established  by  the 
bishops  throughout  the  whole  world,  bear  witness '  to 
the  necessity  ;  and  from  this  passage  he  continues  in  the 
mood  of  exhortation,  more  tersely  and  decidedly.  The 
letter  obviously  comes  from  one  and  the  same  pen,  and 
is  in  parts  a  personal  appeal  to  the  Emperor  in  person. 

In  this  letter,  however,  Leo  strikes  the  note  which 
resounds  to  the  end  of  the  matter.  He  assumes  the 
championship  of  Nicene  rules,  as  of  the  Nicene  faith. 
Theodosius  had  been  misled  into  imagining  that  in  sup- 
porting Eutyches  he  was  supporting  the  Nicene  settle- 
ment :  St.  Leo,  in  effect,  tells  him  plainly  that  it  is  he 
who  is  guarding  both  the  faith  and  the  rules  of  Nicsea. 
This  was  an  essential  element  of  the  Papal  prerogative. 
The  primary  idea  of  Papal  supremacy  is  that  it  exists  for 
the  preservation  of  the  Apostolic  deposit ;  this  aim  took 
the  shape,  after  325,  of  a  guardianship  of  the  Nicene 
settlement.  The  faith  of  Nicasa  could  never,  according 
to  the  teaching  of  Piome,  be  allowed  to  suffer  innovation  ; 
the  Nicene  canons  could  only  be  changed  or  dispensed 
from  for  good  reason  and  by  competent  authority,  to  be 
found  in  the  Apostolic  See.  Nothing  but  the  most 
profound  misunderstanding  of  the  teaching  of  the  Church 
as  formulated  in  the  Vatican  decree  could  have  led  some 
writers  to  see  in  Leo's  championship  of  the  Nicene  settle- 
ment an  abatement  of  his  claim  to  supreme  authority. 
It  was,  on  the  contrary,  the  most  prominent  and  proper 
feature  of  that  supremacy. 


A  COUNCIL   URGED  185 

As  regards  the  particular  provision  to  which  St.  Leo 
referred  in  this  letter  as  Nicene,  it  will  be  observed  that 
he  uses  a  curious  phrase,  '  the  decisions  of  the  canons  of 
Nicsea.'  ^  The  provision  was  that  of  the  fourth  and 
seventh  canons  of  Sardica.  The  periphrasis  perhaps 
expresses  most  accurately  the  real  state  of  the  case.  It 
might  simply  mean  the  '  canonical  decisions '  of  the 
Nicene  Council.  But,  on  the  other  hand,  it  may  point 
to  matters  on  which  the  Nicene  fathers  agreed,  but 
which  were  not  embodied  in  definite  canons  until  the 
Council  of  Sardica  met  and  the  necessity  for  such  pro- 
mulgation of  Nicene  principles  had  been  shown  by  the 
Athanasian  conflicts.  But  the  emphatic  assertion  that 
*  the  decisions  of  the  canons  at  Nicsea,'  of  which  the 
canons  of  Sardica,  to  which  he  referred,  formed  part, 
had  been  '  established  throughout  the  world,'  shows  that 
the  African  troubles  about  these  Sardican  canons  had 
ended  well,  and  the  Church  had  set  her  seal  on  the  term 
Nicene  being  applied  to  those  canons.  Leo  wrote  this 
letter  some  thirty  years  after  the  African  investigation  ; 
and  as  he  was  the  most  accurate  of  men,  his  witness  is 
fair  evidence  that  all  were  now  agreed  that '  Nicene  '  was 
a  proper  term  to  apply  to  the  Sardican  canons.  In  the 
same  way  the  Church  has  settled  that  the  Niceno-Con- 
stantinopolitan  Creed,  which  was  certainly  not  drawn  up 
by  the  Nicene  fathers  but  which  is  recited  throughout 
the  world  as  the  '  Nicene '  Creed,  is  rightly  so  called. 

But,  as  we  shall  see,  we  have  not  simply  an  assertion 
by  Leo,  made  at  a  time  when  it  is  inconceivable  that  he 
should  lay  himself  open  to  the  retort  that  no  such 
Nicene  provision  existed,  to  say  nothing  of  his  pro- 
foundly Christian  character  ;  we  have  also  the  acceptance 

'   Tchv  Kara  NiKaiav  Kavovuv  at  \pri<poi. 


186  THE  ROBBER-SYNOD 

of  this  provision  in  the  East.  The  essence  of  these 
canons  was  that  the  fact  of  a  bishop  having  appealed  to 
Eome  from  a  Synod  of  bishops  enforced  the  suspension 
of  his  sentence  of  deposition,  until  the  Bishop  of  Eome 
had  settled  upon  another  court,  whether  his  own  or 
another  in  the  same  region,  to  try  the  case. 

At  the  same  time  St.  Leo  wrote  to  the  Empress 
Pulcheria  as  to  one  who  had  never  failed  the  religion  and 
faith  of  Christ,  telling  her  of  his  letter  to  Theodosius, 
and  repeating  that  his  legates  had  protested  at  the 
Ephesine  Council  that  they  would  never  suffer  them- 
selves '  to  be  separated  from  that  faith  which,  fully 
expounded  and  authoritatively  defined  by  the  See  of  the 
blessed  Apostle  Peter,  they  had  brought  with  them  to 
the  holy  Synod.'  ^  He  says  that  Flavian  remains  in 
the  communion  of  Eome,  and  that  he  has  moved  for  a 
Council  to  be  held  in  Italy,  that  all  things  that  had 
caused  the  trouble  might  be  rehandled  with  greater  care 
and  so  they  might  return  to  the  peace  of  God.  He  then 
says,  '  Let  your  Piety  deign  to  explain  our  supplication 
to  the  Emperor,  considering  that  you  hold  a  special 
commission  as  from  the  blessed  Apostle  Peter.'  ^ 

Leo  also  wrote  a  very  beautiful  and  touching  letter 
to  the  people  of  Constantinople,  the  flock  of  Flavian, 
whom  he  imagined  to  be  still  alive.  In  the  course  of 
this  letter  he  tells  them  plainly  that  if  any  bishop  should 

*  Greek  :  TriffTews  7]V  irKi]pri  iKT^deiaav  koX  ZLarviruiQilcrav  eK  rov  Qp6vov 
rov  fiaK.  airoaTdXov  Uerpov.  Ep.  45.  The  Latin  is  a  translation,  not  the 
original.  Notice  the  use  of  iKriOeis  and  diarvwdoOeis,  and  cf.  divinitus  in- 
spiratam  of  Ep.  44.  SjoTt^Trwcris  is  used  at  the  end  of  this  letter  for  the 
authoritative  action  of  the  Emperor. 

'  Pietas  vestra  dignetur :  Gk.  ri  evcrefina  .  .  .  KaTa^madro).  Would 
Dr.  Bright  refuse  (cf.  supra,  p.  137)  to  translate  this  '  deign  '  ?  Leo  is 
writing  in  a  strain  of  deference  to  the  Empress. 


A   COUNCIL   URGED  187 

be  elected  to  Constantinople  during  Flavian's  lifetime, 
'  he  will  never  be  considered  in  communion  with  us,  nor 
can  he  be  numbered  in  the  roll  of  bishops.  For  as  we 
have  anathematised  Nestorius  in  his  perversity,  so  we 
anathematise  with  equal  execration  those  who  deny  the 
truth  of  the  flesh  in  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ.'  He  bids 
them  see  in  the  person  of  their  bishop  (Flavian)  Him 
for  Whom  he  has  not  shrunk  from  suffering,  and 
desires  that  they  may  imitate  him,  and  obtain  a  common 
reward  of  faith  with  him.^  There  was  no  question  with 
Leo  as  to  the  illegitimacy  and  nullity  of  Flavian's  deposi- 
tion, nor  of  the  heretical  nature  of  Eutyches's  teaching. 
It  was  the  letter  of  an  Apostle  both  in  its  tender  care  for 
the  flock  in  Constantinople  and  its  unconscious  courage 
in  defying  all  the  forces  that  were  at  work  in  favour  of 
Eutyches.  There  is  also  one  sentence  in  this  letter 
which  was  prompted  by  a  certain  tact  which  Leo  com- 
bined with  the  lion-like  courage  that  marked  his  dealings 
in  this  tremendous  crisis.  In  exhorting  the  Constan- 
tinopolitan  Catholics  to  stand  firm,  he  speaks  of  the 
faith  on  which  they  were  built,  '  and  in  which  we  know 
the  most  Christian  Emperor  remains  firm.'  This  was 
really  the  case :  for  Theodosius  was  being  simply  misled 
by  those  around  him. 

At  the  same  time  Leo  wrote  to  certain  Archiman- 
drites of  Constantinople,  urging  them  to  adhere  to 
Flavian,  and  to  be  ready  to  suffer  for  the  Catholic  faith. 

Theodosius  kept  perfect  silence.     But  after  the  lapse 

'  Ep.  50.  The  letter  is  entitled  *  Leo  and  the  holy  Synod,  which  met 
in  the  city  of  Rome,  to  the  Clergy,  nobility,  and  laity,  most  beloved 
sons.'  It  is  not  likely  that  the  Synod  would  call  itself  the  Fathers  of  the 
clergy  of  Constantinople.  The  fact  is,  that  these  letters  are  really  Leo's, 
written  after  consultation  with  the  Synod. 


188  THE   ROBBER-SYNOD 

of  three  months  the  Emperor  Valentinian  came  to  Eome 

with  the  Empresses   Eudoxia  and   Galla   Placidia,  his 

wife  and  his  mother,  on  the  Vigil  of  the  Feast  of  the  Chair 

of  St.  Peter  (February  450).    They  came  into  St.  Peter's 

for  their  devotions,  and  there  met  the  Sovereign  Pontiff. 

They  were  at  the  tomb  of  the  Apostle  in  the  basilica. 

After    service,    when    his    Holiness    approached   their 

Imperial  Majesties,  hardly  able  to  speak  for  the  tears 

and  sobs  that  choked  his  utterance,    surrounded  by  a 

number  of  bishops,  whom,  says  the  Empress  Placidia, 

*he    had    assembled    by    virtue    of    his    commanding 

position,'  ^  he  described  the  state  of  things,   and  told 

them  of  his  petition  for  a  General  Council,  and  besought 

them  to  use  their  influence  with  their  Imperial  relative 

to  induce  him  to   return   a   favourable   answer  to  the 

petition.     The  sorrow  of  the  great  Pontiff  moved  them  ; 

the  Empresses  describe  it  in  their  letters.     That  of  the 

Empress   Galla   Placidia   is   of    special    interest.     She 

speaks  of  Flavian's  appeal  '  to  the  Apostolic  See  and  all 

the  bishops  of  these  parts,  through  the  legates  of  the 

Bishop  of  Eome,  who  according  to  the  definitions  [or 

canons]  of  the  Nicene  Council  are  wont  to  be  present ' 

(the  canon  being  that  of  Sardica) .     She  urged  that  the 

Emperor  should  arrange  that  '  according  to  the  decree 

and  decision  ^  of  the  Apostolic  throne,  which  we  in  like 

manner  venerate  as  at  the  head  of  matters,*^  Flavian 

should  remain  in  his  Episcopal  status  and  the  judgment 

should  be  transferred   to   the   Synod   of   the  Apostolic 

'   virh  TTJs  apxvs  rod  idlov  tottov  koX  t^s  d|ios. 

2    rhv  TVTTOV  Koi  TOV  '6pOV. 

^  COS  Trporiyov/iiepov  irpoa-Kvvovfx^v.  The  Empress  uses  the  word 
irpo<TKvvy](ns  in  the  opening  of  her  letter  for  '  the  veneration  of  the 
Apostle  Peter '  which  they  had  come  to  render  at  his  tomb  on  the  Feast 
of  his  Chair. 


A   COUNCIL  URGED  189 

throne,  in  which  he  who  was  counted  worthy  to  receive  the 
keys  of  heaven  first  adorned  the  Episcopal  rule  ;  ^  when 
it  becomes  us  to  guard  the  reverence  due  to  this  greatest 
of  cities  which  is  the  mistress  of  the  whole  world.' 

The  special  interest  of  this  letter  lies  in  the  kind  of 
argument  which  the  Empress  felt  it  suitable  in  the 
present  distress  to  use  to  her  Imperial  relative.  That 
she  should  press  home  the  dignity  of  the  Apostolic 
throne  on  the  ground  that  it  is  the  See  of  Peter  and 
fixed  in  the  Eternal  City  witnesses  to  a  general  belief 
to  which  she  felt  she  could  safely  appeal.  Also  the 
expression  '  Synod  of  the  Apostolic  throne '  is  significant. 

But  the  letter  which  Valentinian  wrote  to  Theodosius 
is  of  greater  importance  still.  It  is  impossible  to 
suppose  that  he  would  enter  upon  any  disputed  ground 
as  to  jurisdiction.  His  letter  was  doubtless  inspired  by 
Leo.  And  who  can  read  the  letters  of  Leo  at  this 
period  without  feeling  that  his  supreme  motive  was  the 
honour  due  to  our  Divine  Lord  and  his  devouring  zeal 
for  the  truth  of  the  Incarnation  ?  It  is  true  that 
Harnack,  from  his  rationalistic  point  of  view,  sees 
only  a  political  motive  in  Leo's  conduct.  At  this 
period  he  was  dominated  by  fear  of  Alexandria's  pre- 
eminence ;  presently,  his  motive  would  be  fear  of  that  of 
Constantinople.  The  theory  is  certainly  read  into  the 
record,  for  there  is  nothing  in  that  record  which  ex- 
plicitly states  it,  and  it  involves  a  complete  repudia- 
tion of  the  religious  side  of  Leo's  character.  It  is  a 
theory  which  would  be  impossible  to  one  who  accepted 
the  teaching  of  the  Church  on  the  mystery  of  the  Incar- 
nation ;  and   in   dealing   with  motives,  it  is  necessary 

'   Gk.  dirKTKOTrrjy  ttjs  apxt^po:<Tvu7]s. 


190  THE   ROBBER-SYNOD 

to  have  some  sympathy  with  the  deeper  currents  of  a 
man's  mind. 

A  very  different,  but  also  unjust,  estimate  of  Leo's 
action  is  suggested  by  Dr.  Bright.  Leo,  according  to  this 
writer,  was  at  the  same  time  engaged  in  '  magnifying 
his  own  bishopric  and  consolidating  and  formulating  the 
"  Petrine  "  ideas  which  had  long  grown  up  among  its 
clergy.'     In  this  he  '  went  too  far.'  ^ 

Now  let  us  see  what  ground  Leo  had  to  stand  upon. 
It  will  be  admitted  that  for  twelve  hundred  years  the 
'  Petrine  ideas '  as  formulated  by  St.  Gregory  the  Great 
have  held  their  own  in  the  West.  '  I  know  not  what 
Bishop  is  not  subject  to  this  See,'  are  his  words.  But 
was  there  sufficient  in  the  past  to  exonerate  Leo  from 
the  charge  of  having  formulated  a  new  Petrine  tradition 
— that  is,  from  '  consolidating  and  formulating  the 
Petrine  ideas  which  had  long  grown  up  among  its 
clergy  ' — in  the  sense  of  innovating  on  the  immemorial 
teaching  of  the  Church  concerning  the  see  of  Peter  ?  The 
previous  pages  of  this  book  supply  an  answer.  In  no 
single  passage  of  his  writings  does  St.  Leo  say  more 
than  had  already  been  said  in  the  beginning  of  the 
century  by  his  predecessor  Innocent  I.^  And  St. 
Augustine  detected  no  sign  of  '  innovation  '  in  this  teach- 
ing of  St.  Innocent.  But,  further,  St.  Leo  does  not  in 
the  whole  conduct  of  the  Eutychian  controversy  go 
one  whit  beyond  St.  Julius,  the  first  champion  of  the 
Nicene  settlement.  St.  Julius  claimed  that  a  Bishop 
of  Alexandria  must  be  judged  from  Kome,  and  he 
grounded  his  claim  on  the  possession  of  a  Petrine  tra- 
dition. In  that  case  the  bishop  was  St.  Athanasius 
and   Julius  acquitted  him,  and   Athanasius    preserved 

'  Boma7i  See,  p.  176.  -  Aug.  Epp.  181,  182. 


A   COUNCIL   URGED  191 

the  letter  in  which  Julius  asserts  his  claim,  and  is 
responsible  for  handing  it  down  to  posterity  among 
the  proofs  of  his  innocence.  Now  in  the  case  before  us, 
Leo  had  to  do  with  an  unworthy  successor  of  Athanasius 
in  the  same  see,  and  he  claimed  the  right  to  judge 
him.  He  preferred  to  exercise  his  judgment  through 
the  instrumentality  and  with  the  assistance  of  a  General 
Synod,  but  his  duty  of  judgment  was  in  his  own  mind 
derived  from  his  relationship  to  the  Apostle  Peter.  It 
was  simply  and  absolutely  his  duty  to  stand  in  the 
breach  as  the  responsible  person  in  the  last  resort,  and 
in  doing  so,  if  the  Apostolic  throne  appeared  with  a  fresh 
jewel  in  its  crown,  it  was  not  he,  but  circumstances  that 
put  the  jewel  there.  He  certainly  did  not  '  formulate  ' 
the  Petrine  ideas  in  any  sense  of  innovation.  But  the 
Petrine  prerogative  was  of  that  nature  that,  while  always 
clearly  before  the  minds  of  the  Popes,  its  rights  were 
capable  of  consolidation,  as  circumstances  called  for 
their  appropriate  exercise.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  however, 
what  we  owe  to  St.  Leo  in  this  respect  is  mostly  the 
clear  statements  of  a  great  theologian,  and  the  provi- 
dential preservation  of  a  considerable  literature  in  which 
Emperors,  Empresses  and  Archbishops  figure,  and  all 
this  in  connection  with  the  mystery  of  the  holy  Incar- 
nation. It  has  been  well  said :  '  That  Leo,  alike  in  his 
high  official  position,  and  in  his  force  of  character  and 
religious  earnestness,  was  the  man  to  stand  forward 
amid  the  Eutychian  peril,  will  be  admitted  by  all  who 
believe  in  the  One  Christ  as  perfect  God  and  perfect 
Man,  with  gratitude  due  to  him  for  that  firm  theological 
equipoise  whereby,  while  the  error  for  the  time  is  being 
exposed,  no  advantage  is  given  to  its  Nestorian  opposite.'^ 

'  Bonian  See,  p.  176. 


192  THE   KOBBER-SYNOD 

It  was  under  the  influence,  as  we  may  rightly  sup- 
pose, of  this  great  Pontiff,  that  the  Emperor  Yalentinian 
now  wrote  his  own  letter  to  Theodosius.  His  letter  was 
shorter  than  that  of  his  mother,  but  to  the  same  effect. 
After  mentioning  his  visit  to  Eome  for  the  Feast  of  St. 
Peter's  Chair — he  had  not  yet  lost  the  effects  of  his 
training  and  fallen  into  the  excesses  which  disfigured 
his  after  life^ie  speaks  of  the  duty  incumbent  on  them 
as  Emperors  to  defend  the  faith  received  from  their  an- 
cestors and  to  preserve  the  veneration  due  to  the  blessed 
Apostle  Peter.  He  then  says  that  '  the  most  blessed 
bishop  of  the  city  of  the  Komans,  to  whom  antiquity 
yielded  the  episcopal  rule  over  all,  ought  to  have 
opportunity  and  facility  for  judging  concerning  the 
faith  and  concerning  bishops.  For  this  reason,  in 
accordance  with  the  custom  of  the  Councils '  (in  allu- 
sion probably  to  the  cases  of  Athanasius  and  Chryso- 
stom,  and  to  the  canon  of  Sardica),  '  the  Bishop  of 
Constantinople  [Flavian]  formally  appealed  to  him.' 
At  Leo's  request,  therefore,  Valentinian  says  he  prefers 
his  petition  to  Theodosius  '  that  the  aforesaid  bishop, 
the  rest  of  the  bishops  from  the  whole  world  having- 
been  assembled  within  Italy,  and  the  whole  previous 
judgment  [of  Dioscorus]  having  been  set  aside,  may 
carefully  investigate  the  case  in  hand  afresh,  and 
promulgate  the  sentence  which  the  faith  and  the  idea 
(or  doctrine)  of  true  Godhead  {ratio  verce  Divinitatis) 
demands,  &c.'  {Leon.  Ep.  55). 

It  required  no  development  of  Petrine  ideas  to  sug- 
gest this  procedure.  It  was  in  strict  accordance  with 
the  wish  of  the  Archbishop  of  Constantinople.  Flavian 
had  both  appealed  to  the  Koman  Synod,  and  expressed 
a  desire  that  another   General  Council   should   be   as- 


A   COUNCIL  URGED  193 

sembled  to  counteract  the  effects  of  the  Pseudo- Synod  at 
Ephesus.  The  plan  commended  itself  to  Leo,  and  thus, 
after  repudiating  Flavian's  deposition,  he  wished  for  a 
General  Council  to  assemble  in  Italy.  The  case  of  other 
bishops  had  to  be  considered,  and  Leo  had  to  draw  the  Epi- 
scopate round  himself.  It  was  a  bold  request,  for  it  meant 
the  removal  of  the  investigation  from  the  influences  of  the 
Court  of  Constantinople.  Now  it  would  have  been  the 
merest  folly  to  write  thus  if  there  had  been  no  common 
agreement  as  to  the  prerogative  of  the  See  of  Peter  in  a 
matter  of  this  kind.  The  answer  could  and  must  have 
been  given  straight  and  at  once,  that  the  Church  knew  of 
no  such  prerogatives  as  were  assumed  by  Leo,  and  recog- 
nised by  the  Emperor  Yalentinian,  by  the  Empresses  Galla 
Placidia  and  Eudoxia,  by  the  martyred  Archbishop  of 
Constantinople,  by  the  champion  of  orthodoxy,  the  Bishop 
of  Dorylseum,  and  by  the  ablest  bishop  of  the  day, 
Theodoret  of  Cyrus  (or  Cyrrhos),  and  by  the  saintly  and 
orthodox  Empress  Pulcheria  in  the  East.  This  answer 
was  not  given,  and  the  whole  course  of  the  proceedings 
for  the  next  two  years  shows  that  it  was  the  one  answer 
that  could  not  be  given  by  orthodox  Christians. 

Galla  Placidia  wrote  also  to  the  Empress  Pulcheria 
in  the  same  strain  as  to  Theodosius,  entreating  her  to 
take  care  that  all  that  was  done  in  that  '  tumultuous  and 
miserable '  Synod  at  Ephesus  should  be  repudiated,  and 
that  the  whole  cause  should  be  remitted  to  the  '  Apostolic 
throne  in  which  the  most  blessed  of  the  Apostles,  Peter, 
who  received  the  keys  of  Heaven,  first  adorned  the  high 
priesthood,'  adding  that  '  we  ought  to  give  the  precedency 
in  all  things  to  the  eternal  city.'  Apparently,  her 
thought  was  that  the  eternal  city  had  a  right  to  precedency 
in  the  civil  order,  because,  as  she  says,  it  has  filled  the 

o 


194  THE   KOBBER-SYNOD 

world  and  the  like,  and  in  the  ecclesiastical  order, 
because  it  is  the  See  of  Peter  ;  and  so  in  *  all  things  '  it 
deserves  the  pre-eminence. 

Now  we  must  either  suppose  that  St.  Leo  had 
suddenly  converted  the  Emperor  and  these  two  Em- 
presses to  a  new  view  of  the  Papacy,  and  that  un- 
toward circumstances  had  likewise  converted  the  Arch- 
bishop of  Constantinople  and  the  orthodox  Bishop  of 
Dorylaeum  to  the  same  view,  or,  if  this  seem  unlikely, 
we  can  only  see  in  their  writings  a  witness  to  a  common 
consciousness  that  the  See  of  Peter  was,  in  the  last  resort, 
the  proper  judge  in  matters  of  faith  and  in  regard  to  the 
deposition  of  bishops,  and  that  St.  Leo  was  not  starting 
a  new  '  school  of  thought '  in  the  Church,  but  simply 
working  on  an  accepted  belief,  in  his  defence  of  the  faith. 
That  he  did  assume  such  a  belief  as  the  common  inherit- 
ance of  Christendom  is  certain,  as  has  been  already 
shown,  and  as  is,  if  possible,  still  more  conspicuous  in  the 
letters  which  he  wrote  to  Constantinople,  under  the  very 
eye  of  the  Emperor  Theodosius.  His  letter  to  the  clergy 
and  laity  there  contains  a  magnificent  exposition  of  the 
dogma  of  the  Incarnation,  shorter  far  than  the  letter  to 
Flavian,  but  a  perfect  summary  of  the  Church's  teaching 
against  Nestor ius  on  the  one  hand  and  Eutyches  on  the 
other.  He  bids  them  work  on  the  Emperor  '  that  he 
may  deign  {dignetur)  to  grant  our  petition,  by  which  we 
have  demanded  that  a  plenary  Synod  be  called.'  But 
later  on  he  wrote  to  the  Archimandrites  Martin  and 
Faustus,  and  spoke  of  his  letters  having  been  sent  to 
Constantinople,  '  not  only  with  the  authority  of  the  Holy 
See,  but  also  with  the  unanimous  consent  of  the  holy 
Synod,  which  had  met  in  great  numbers,'  ^  letters  which 

*  '  Quee  ad  nos  frequens  convenerat.'    St.  Leo  calls  the  letters  scripta 


A   COUNCIL  URGED  195 

being  thus  sent  showed  '  what  care  we  have  for  the  whole 
Church.'  '  Meanwhile  let  your  love  take  care  that  what 
we  preach  contrary  to  the  impious  sense  [of  Eutyches] 
and  in  accordance  with  evangelic  doctrine,  may  be  known 
to  all  the  children  of  the  Church.  For  although  we 
wrote  fully  what  had  always  been  and  was  the  opinion 
of  Catholics,  still  we  have  now  added  no  little  exhorta- 
tion to  confirm  the  minds  of  all.  For  I  am  mindful  that 
I  preside  over  the  Church  in  his  name  whose  confession 
was  praised  by  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ  and  whose  faith 
destroys  all  heresies,  but  specially  the  impiety  of  the 
present  error :  and  I  understand  that  nothing  else  is 
permitted  to  me  than  that  I  should  spend  all  my  efforts 
on  that  cause  in  which  the  safety  of  the  universal  Church 
is  attacked.' 

'  I  preside  over  the  Church  in  the  name  of  him  whose 
confession  was  praised  by  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ ' — such 
were  the  plain  terms  in  which  the  Saint  described  his 
responsibilities  in  writing  to  orthodox  Eastern  Archiman- 
drites. 

But  what  of  the  Emperor  Theodosius  ?  It  is  most 
unfortunate  that  the  correspondence  which  ensued 
between  Leo  and  Theodosius  has  been  lost.  The 
Emperor  speaks  of  several  letters  which  had  passed 
between  them,  none  of  which  are  extant.  The  question 
of  Flavian's  deposition  necessarily  fell  through  in  conse- 
quence of  his  death,  owing  to  the  fearful  scenes  at  the 
Synod  in  Ephesus  ;  and  the  correspondence  appears  to 
have  turned  on  the  question  as  to  whether  there  was  any 

nostra,  sent  by  the  authority  of  the  Holy  See,  and  with  the  unanimous 
consent  of  the  Synod  :  the  authority  was  his,  the  consent  was  the 
Synod's.  The  letters  were  Leo's  own  letters.  This  is  shown  by  the 
next  paragraph  in  this  letter. 

o  2 


196  THE   ROBBER-SYNOD 

ground  for  a  revision  of  the  Synod's  utterances  as  to  the 
faith.     Leo  wrote  in  December  to  the  Emperor  pointing 
out  that  they  in  the  West  held  to  the  Nicene  faith,  evi- 
dently endeavouring  to  open  his  eyes  as  to  the  delusion 
into  which  he  had  been  led.     But  the  Emperor  in  his 
reply  to  Valentinian  assumes  that  the  facts  of  the  case 
were  not  well  known  when  he  and  the  Empresses  wrote 
at  the  instance  of  Leo,  to  his  correspondence  with  whom 
he  refers  them.     He  in  no  way  denies  the  jurisdiction  of 
the  See  of  Peter,  but  he  managed  to  elude  its  exercise  in 
this  instance.     We  cannot,  indeed,  argue  much  from  his 
silence,  since  we  do  not  possess  the  correspondence  to 
which   he  alludes ;   but   certainly   it  would   have  been 
natural  to  have  given  some  hint  to  Valentinian,  in  his 
answer  to  him,  that  his  views  as  to  the  authority  of  the 
throne   of   Peter  were  exaggerated  if  Theodosius  really 
thought  they  were.     But  there  is  not  the  most  distant 
approach  to  such  a  hint,  not  a  word  about  the  honour 
due  to  the  Byzantine  capital,  but  mere  assertions  that  if 
Valentinian  had  known  the  whole  facts  of  the  case,  he 
would  recognise  that  their  adhesion  to  the  Nicene  faith 
remained  intact.      The   position   was   certainly  one  of 
extreme  difficulty  for  Leo.     The  Emperor  appeared  to  be 
completely  in  the  hands  of  the  Eutychian  party.     And 
it  was  impossible  in  those  days  for  the  Pope  to  exercise 
his  right  of  calling  a  General  Council  without  the  concur- 
rence  of   the   Emperor,  who  could  forbid  his   subjects 
passing  from  city  to  city,  and  whose  financial  aid  was 
absolutely  necessary.     But,  as  before  in  the  history  of 
the  Church,  so  now,  man's  necessity  proved  to  be  God's 
opportunity.     Theodosius  was  removed  from  the  scene. 
He  died  from  a  stumble  of  his  horse. 


Part  III 
THE    COUNCIL    OF    CHALCEDON 


Chapter    I.    The  Council  of  Chalcedon  Convoked,  p.  199 
„        II.     The  Deposition  of  Dioscorus  : 

1.  Placed  on  Trial,  p.  221 

2.  The  Trial,  p.  229 

3.  His  Contumacy,  p.  240 

4.  The  Sentence,  p.  244 

„  III.  The  Need  of  a  Definition,  p.  257 

„  IV.  The  Adhesion  to  Leo's  Tome,  p.  270 

,,  V.  The  Definition  itself,  p.  280 

„  VI.  The  Eestoration  of  Theodoret,  p.  297 

„  VII.  Antioch's  Dependence  on  Eome,  p.  312 

„  VIII.  Previous  Encroachments  of  '  New  Kome,'  p.  318 

„  IX.  The  Byzantine  Plot  ;  or  the  28th  Canon,  p.  386 

„  X.  Eastern  Becoqnition  of  Papal  Supremacy,  p.  350 


NOTES 


On  Theodoret's  Use  of  rjyefiovCa,  p.  219 

On  Dioscorus  being  put  on  Trial,  p.  262 

On  the  Meaning  of  eKOeai?,  p.  292 

On  the  Restoration  of  Theodoret,  p.  308 

On  Maximus  of  Antioch,  p.  316 

On  Dr.  Bright's  Accusation  against  the  Legates,  p.  347 

Appendix  I.    Dr.  Bright  and  the  Letter  of  the  Synod  to  Leo,  p.  367 
„        II.    The  Tome  irreformable  from  the  first,  p,  378 
„      III.    The  Papal  Legates'  version  of  the  6th  Nicene  Cauou,  p.  394 


CHAPTEE  I 

THE  COUNCIL  OF  CHALCBDON  CONVOKED 

It  has  been  said  that  before  the  accident  by  which  he 
met  his  death,  Theodosius  had  seen  his  errors.^  He  had 
banished  his  intriguing  chamberlain  Chrysaphius,  and 
recalled  Pulcheria.  What  is  certain  is  that  he  selected 
her  for  his  heiress. 

This  extraordinary  woman,  whose  life  was  one  of 
prayer  and  fasting  in  the  midst  of  Imperial  cares  ;  who 
rose  night  by  night  to  sing  the  Psalms  with  some  of  her 
equally  devout  family  ;  who  had  made  a  vow  of  perpetual 
virginity ;  and  who  had  been  the  recipient  of  one  of 
Cyril's  most  magnificent  letters  on  the  subject  of  the  In- 
carnation, now  became  a  Deborah  in  the  crisis  that  had 
arisen.  The  Council  of  Chalcedon  saluted  her  as  a  new 
Helena.  St.  Cyril  says  that  in  her  '  every  kind  of  virtue 
and  every  adornment  pleasing  in  the  e3^es  of  the  Divine 
Majesty  shone  with  wonderful  splendour.'  ^  No  woman, 
however,  had  as  yet  held  the  reins  of  empire  ;  and  ac- 
cordingly she  ofiered  her  hand  and  throne  to  the  most 
distinguished  general  of  the  day,  on  condition  that  he 
should  respect  her  vow.  Marcian,  for  that  was  his  name, 
was  a  worthy  husband  to  St.  Pulcheria,  renowned  as 
well  for  his  piety  as  for  his  military  skill  and  sense  of 

'  See  last  chapter. 

■^  Cyr.  Alex,  de  Fide,  ad  Pulch.  et  Sorores  Reginas. 


200  COUNCIL  OF  CHALCEDON 

justice.^  His  accession  to  the  throne  was  welcomed  alike 
by  the  senate,  the  army,  and  the  people  at  large. 

Everything  was  now  changed.  The  governing  motive 
was  no  longer  primarily  political  but  religious.  It  is  not 
too  much  to  say  that  Harnack's  appreciation  of  the 
situation  ignores  the  main  facts.  Pulcheria's  accession 
was  the  new  factor,  and  the  determining  feature  of  the 
conflict  as  it  entered  upon  its  second  phase  was  the 
passionate  attachment  of  the  new  Empress  to  the  orthodox 
faith.  Her  entreaties  to  Theodosius  that  he  would 
accede  to  the  Pope's  request  for  a  fresh  General  Council 
to  be  called  in  Italy  had  failed.  But  in  her  new  position 
her  first  care,  as  also  that  of  her  husband,  was  to  carry 
out  the  earnest  wishes,  as  they  understood  them,  of  the 
Sovereign  Pontiff.^ 

Their  very  advent  to  the  throne  had  made  a  Coun- 
cil unnecessary.  This,  however,  they  did  not  see ;  and 
Marcian  accordingly  wrote  to  Leo,  as  '  bishop  and  ruler 
of  the  divine  faith, '^  acquainting  him  with  the  fact  of 
his  accession,  asking  for  his  prayers  and  saying  that  he 
hoped  that  by  the  Synod  assembled  with  Leo's  authori- 
sation ^  peace  would  be  effected  among  all  the  bishops. 

'  TO  Trphs  &ehv  eiia-e^Tjs,  ra  irpbs  TroAtTeuo^eVoi/s  S'lKaios  (Evagrius,  H.  E. 
II.  i.). 

^  Of  course,  political  quiet  was  the  aim  of  the  new  Emperor ;  but 
his  religious  instincts  grasped  the  fact  that  the  peace  of  the  State  was 
best  attained  through  unity  in  the  faith,  and  he  believed  Leo's  to  be  the 
true  faith. 

^  tV  o'V  ayiw(rvv7]v  ciriiTKOirevovcrau  Kal  &pxov<Tav  ttjs  Oeias  ir'KTTews  — 
words  which  Dr.  Bright  understands  to  mean  that  '  as  chief  Christian 
bishop,  he  was  that  faith's  foremost  guardian  '  {Roman  See,  p.  179). 
The  Latin,  which  is  probably  from  Marcian's  own  pen,  is  '  principatum 
in  episcopatu  divinae  fidei  possidentem.'  Principatus  on  Marcian's  lips 
would  imply  sovereignty,  not,  of  course,  over  the  faith,  but  over  others 
in  regard  to  the  faith. 

*  Sia  TTJs  (TuyKpoTTjdeicrrjs  ravr-qs  (rvv6Sov   crov  avQ^VTOvvros  [Leon.  Ep> 


ITS  CONVOCATION  201 

Some  correspondence  ensued,  which  is  not  extant,  and 
Leo  sent  legates  to  deal  with  the  Emperor's  proposal. 
Marcian  wrote  again  to  Leo  in  November,  and  asked  him 
to  signify  his  wish  as  to  attendance  at  the  Council,  at 
which  all  the  bishops  were  to  meet,  and  at  which  '  what- 
ever conduces  to  the  peace  of  the  Christian  religion 
and  to  the  Catholic  faith  shall  be  settled  as  your  Holi- 
ness in  accordance  with  the  ecclesiastical  canons  has 
defined.'  ^     The  allusion  is  to  Leo's  letter  to  Flavian. 

Pulcheria  also  wrote,  and  spoke  of  the  Council  in 
which  the  bishops  '  would  decide  with  your  authority,^ 
as  the  faith  and  Christian  piety  demand,  about  the 
Catholic  confession  and  the  bishops  who  were  separated.' 
In  neither  of  these  letters  do  their  Imperial  Majesties 
imply  that  the  doctrine  contained  in  Leo's  Tome  was 
an  open  question.  They  imply  the  contrary.  Marcian 
speaks  of  Leo  having  the  '  rule  '  in  regard  to  the  faith,^ 
and  of  the  bishops  settling  things  in  accordance  with 
Leo's  decision ;  and  Pulcheria  in  the  letter  just  quoted 
speaks  of  '  the  Apostolic  confession  of  your  letter  '  and 
rejoices  that  Anatolius,  the  new  Bishop  of  Constantinople, 
has  signed  it — treating  it  as  a  standard  of  faith.     But 

73).  The  last  two  words  obviously  refer  to  the  gathering  of  the  Council, 
which  was  due,  as  Marcian  considered,  to  Leo's  origination.  If  it  is  re- 
ferred to  the  establishment  of  peace,  the  inference  as  to  the  scope  of 
Papal  authority  would  be  stronger  still.  But  the  best  scholars  under- 
stand it  as  referring  to  the  Council.  Dr.  Bright  understands  it  as 
relating  to  the  settlement  of  peace,  by  Leo's  authority  (Roman  See, 
p.  179). 

'  SiCTuiroxre.  -  <rov  avdevrovvros  dpiffwaiv. 

3  &pxov<rau  ttjs  iria-Tcws.  Mansi  remarks  on  the  words  'as  your 
Holiness  ordained '  &c. :  '  Thus  the  Emperor  acknowledged  the  de- 
finitions of  St.  Leo,  which  obviously  consisted  of  the  Tome,  and  were 
to  be  looked  into  by  the  Synod  in  such  wise  as  that  they  were  bound  to 
assent  to  them '  (Nat.  Alex.  ix.  521). 


202  COUNCIL   OF   CHALCEDON 

there  were  bishops  who  had  been  led  away  at  the 
Latrocinium  and  (it  was  thought)  needed  to  have  the 
faith  set  before  them,  and  the  lapsed  but  penitent 
bishops  needed  some  public  restoration  which  would  be 
made  at  the  Council  with  Leo's  authority.^  The  Empress 
told  St.  Leo  that  the  body  of  the  martyred  Flavian  had 
been  brought  back  in  great  honour  to  Constantinople, 
and  that  the  bishops  who  had  been  sent  into  exile  for 
siding  with  him  had  returned  to  their  sees. 

Leo,  however,  now  felt  that  there  was  no  need  to 
hurry  on  the  Council.  It  might  well  wait.  The  deposi- 
tion of  Flavian  was  no  longer  in  question,  and  the  dis- 
honour done  had  been  repaired  by  the  solemn  transference 
of  his  body  to  Constantinople  ;  the  bishops  driven  out 
by  Dioscorus  had  returned  by  Imperial  order  ;  and  the 
Tome  had  been  practically  accepted.  Matters,  there- 
fore, could  be  now  readjusted  without  the  excitement  of 
a  General  Council ;  and,  indeed,  a  Council  could  not  be 
materially  oecumenical  by  reason  of  the  alarming  state 
of  things  at  this  moment  in  Italy.  Attila  was  on  the  war- 
path, and  bishops  could  not  move  about.  The  West  was, 
indeed,  always  sufficiently  represented  at  a  Council  by 
the  Papal  legates,  but  the  actual  presence  of  Western 
bishops  was  impossible.  On  the  whole,  therefore,  he  dis- 
couraged the  immediate  convention  of  a  General  Synod. 
But  Marcian  had  gone  too  far  to  recall  the  step,  unless, 
of  course,  Leo  actually  refused  to  send  legates,  in  which 
case  it  would  have  been  merely  an  Eastern  Council. 
Leo,  however,  knowing  that  Marcian  had  originated  the 

'  aov  avdevTovuTos  6pi(To)(nu.  Piilcheria,  ^ace  Dr.  Bright  {Roman  See, 
p.  179),  is  speaking  here  of  what  was  to  take  place  '  in  the  Council.' 
The  sentence  begins  KaKela^  y^uoixevris  avuohov  and  ends  with  the  words 
just  quoted,  to  which  the  subject  is  'all  the  bishops.' 


ITS   CONVOCATION  203 

idea  of  a  Council  purely  from  a  desire  to  carry  out  his 
strongly  expressed  and  reiterated  wish,  and  knowing 
that  matters  were  safe  in  the  hands  of  Marcian  and 
Pulcheria  so  far  as  the  external  ordering  of  affairs  was 
concerned,  decided  to  send  his  legates.  It  was  of  no  im- 
portance now,  that  it  should  be  held  in  Italy,  as  Leo  had 
originally  desired,  for  the  Court  influence  was  no  longer 
opposed  to  the  true  faith,  and  Pulcheria  had  expressly 
promised  that  nothing  should  be  decided  without  the 
authority  of  Leo.*  Marcian,  therefore,  had  his  way :  a 
fact  which  has  no  bearing  on  the  question  of  Papal 
rights  ;  for  any  such  question  would  only  have  emerged 
if  Leo  had  refused  to  have  anything  to  do  with  the  con- 
vocation of  a  General  Synod.  But  their  Imperial 
Majesties  and  the  Sovereign  Pontiff  were  now  working  in 
concert,  and  the  one  desire  of  their  Majesties  was  that 
the  authority  of  the  Pontiff  should  have  full  sway  both 
in  the  matter  of  faith  and  in  the  discipline  to  be  observed 
in  regard  to  the  bishops  who  had  failed  in  their  duty  at 
the  Latrocinium. 

Everything,  therefore,  now  promised  well,  mainly 
owing  to  the  influence  of  the  saintly  woman  who,  in  God's 
providence,  was  now  at  the  helm.  Political  issues  were 
subordinated  to  religion  ;  and  the  influence  of  the  great 
Pontiff  was  destined  to  hold  its  proper  place  in  the  fourth 
(Ecumenical  Council  of  the  Church. 

But  before  entering  the  church  at  Chalcedon  in  which 
the  Council  was  held,  to  listen  to  the  discussions,  it  will 
be  well  for  us  to  consider  the  circumstances  under  which 
two  of  the  bishops  proceeded  to  take  their  seats,  viz.  (1) 
the  new  Archbishop  of  Constantinople  and  (2)  the  cele- 
brated historian,  Theodoret,  Bishop  of  Cyrus. 


204  COUNCIL  OF  CHALCEDON 

1.  Upon  the  death  of  the  martyr  St.  Flavian,  the 
clergy  and  people  of  Constantinople  had  elected  to  the 
vacant  see  an  Alexandrian  priest  who  had  acted  as 
secretary  to  Dioscorus  and  was  in  high  favour  with  the 
Emperor  Theodosius.  The  latter  had  relied  on  him  in 
his  ecclesiastical  administration,  and  had  probably  pro- 
cured his  election  as  archbishop  of  his  capital.  Anatolius, 
for  such  was  his  name,  wrote  to  Leo  announcing  his 
consecration.  What  else  he  said  we  do  not  know.  It  is 
not  correct  to  say  that  he  '  simply  announced  his  conse- 
cration, without  asking  for  any  consent  to  it  on  Leo's 
part,'  ^  if  by  the  latter  words  anything  unusual  is  im- 
plied. The  purpose  of  announcing  his  consecration  would 
naturally  be  that  of  receiving  Leo's  consent.  Anatolius 's 
letter,  as  we  have  it,  is  confessedly  a  fragment :  but 
St.  Leo's  letter  to  the  Emperor  clearly  implies  that 
Anatolius  sent  his  notice  for  the  sake  of  confirmation. 
We  do  know,  however,  that  he  omitted  a  statement  as  to 
his  teaching  ;  he  gave  no  account  of  his  faith.^  Leo 
accordingly  waited  some  months  before  answering,  and 
then  he  wrote,  not  to  Anatolius  himself,  but  to  the 
Emperor  Theodosius.  Now  it  would  hardly  be  possible 
to  give  clearer  indications  of  the  relation  of  sovereignty 
on  the  part  of  the  See  of  St.  Peter  towards  the  See  of 
Constantinople  than  are  afforded  by  this  and  some 
succeeding  letters.  It  must  be  remembered  that  Leo 
was  then  writing  to  an  Eastern  Emperor  who  was 
opposed  to  his  condemnation  of  Eutyches ;  he  was 
writing,  too,  about  the  bishop  of  that  city  which  was  the 
very  apple  of  the  Imperial  eye.  We  know  from  the 
*  Constitution  '  of  Valentinian  in  445,  which  bore  the  name 
of  Theodosius,  that  the   latter  accepted  in  theory  the 

»  Diet,  of  Chr.  Biogr.  art.  '  Leo,'  by  C.  Gore.  ^  ^^^  69-71. 


ITS   CONVOCATION  205 

sovereignty  of  the  See  of  Peter  over  all  the  sees  of 
Christendom  ;  for  although  such  '  Constitutions '  ordi- 
narily ran  in  the  joint  names  of  the  Emperors  as  a 
matter  of  form,  yet  they  would  not  on  such  a  vital  point 
contain  a  doctrine,  bearing  on  politics,  which  was  not 
accepted  by  both.  It  was  a  matter  of  course  that  they 
agreed  in  what  as  a  matter  of  course  ran  in  their  joint 
names.  But  this  sovereignty  of  the  Apostolic  See  was 
now  expressed  in  a  form  most  calculated  to  excite  the 
Emperor's  indignation,  and  to  jeopardise  the  whole 
position,  unless  that  sovereignty  were  beyond  dispute. 
A  mere  diplomatist  would  not  have  ventured  on  such  a 
course.  But  in  truth  the  Huns,  tumultuously  crowding 
into  Italy  and  advancing  towards  Eome,  were  not  more 
dreadful  in  the  eyes  of  Leo  than  the  incursion  of  heretics 
into  that  vineyard  of  the  Lord  with  which  the  Eastern 
bishops  declared  him  to  have  been  entrusted  by  the 
Saviour  of  the  world. ^  The  time  had  come  when  that 
energetic  nature,  which  had  hardly  its  peer  in  that  half- 
century,  must  exercise  the  authority  of  his  position  to 
the  full.  The  Divine  Majesty  of  his  Lord  was  at  stake. 
It  was  enough  for  Leo.  He  '  made  full  proof  of  his 
ministry.' 

Now  there  was  good  ground  for  suspicion  as  to  Ana- 
tolius's  teaching.  Indeed,  his  conduct  after  the  Synod 
showed  that  there  was  a  taint  of  heresy  about  him,  such 
as  Leo  feared.  Accordingly  Leo  wrote  to  the  Emperor, 
in  July  450,  and  praised  him  for  deciding  to  adhere  to 
the  Nicene  Creed.  It  was  on  this  point  that  Theodosius 
had  been  misled  by  the  Eutychian  party.  They  were, 
as  we  have  seen,  for  ever  proclaiming  their  adherence  to 
the  Nicene  Creed,  and  made  believe  that  they  were  con- 

*  Letter  of  the  Eastern  bishops  to  Leo  after  Chalcedon. 


206  COUNCIL   OF   CHALCEDON 

tending  for  that  Creed  and  for  the  Ephesine  decree.  So 
the  Pope  gives  the  Emperor  credit  for  sincerely  believing 
that  he  was  acting  in  defence  of  the  Nicene  settlement ; 
and  on  this  ground  he  expresses  his  surprise  that 
Anatolius  has  not  sent  him  an  account  of  his  faith.  Con- 
sequently he  has  deferred  acknowledging  him — '  not  that 
he  refused  his  affection,  but  because  he  awaited  some 
manifestation  of  Catholic  truth.'  He  says  that  he  is  not 
exacting  from  him  anything  but  what  every  Catholic 
would  do.  He  then  refers  to  their  predecessors'  writings 
as  sufficient  tests  for  those  who  preceded  them,  but  as 
insufficient  for  themselves  under  present  circumstances. 
Anatolius  is  to  '  read  carefully '  '  what  the  holy  Fathers 
have  given  as  guard  to  the  faith  in  the  Incarnation,' 
'  and  he  must  understand  that  what  Cyril  wrote  against 
Nestorius  is  consonant  with  this.'  Cyril's  letter,  says 
the  Pope,  is  a  clear  exposition  of  the  Nicene  definition, 
and  has  been  placed  in  the  archives  of  the  Apostolic  See.^ 
Anatolius  is  to  read  carefully  the  Acts  of  the  Ephesine 
Synod  against  Nestorius  ;  and  he  is  '  not  to  disdain  to 
read  also  my  letter,  which  he  will  find  agrees  in  all 
things  with  the  Fathers.'  St.  Leo  thus  places  his  Tome 
side  by  side  with  other  standards  of  faith,  using  it  as, 
with  them,  a  test  of  the  bishop's  orthodoxy.^ 

'  '  Apostolicae  Sedis  scrinia  susceperunt.'  In  other  words,  it  was  a 
standard  of  faith, 

-  '  Let  him  not  disdain  '  is  an  expression  of  courtesy.  It  is  strange 
that  Dr.  Bright  does  not  see  this,  and  that  he  should  ask  the  extraordinary 
question  :  '  Can  words  be  plainer  as  against  the  assertion  that  the  Tome, 
qua  Leo's,  was  deemed  infallible?'  {Roma7i  See,  p.  181).  This  is 
exactly  what  the  words  do  show — viz.  that  the  Tome  was  already  used 
as  an  infallible  test  of  orthodoxy  in  regard  to  theEutychian  controversy. 
Notice  that  Leo  gives  Anatolius  no  alternative  here— he  must  read 
Cyril's  letter  and  St.  Leo's  own  letter.  Dr.  Bright  misses  the  reason 
why  Cyril's  letter  was  to  be  read — viz.  because  it  had  been  accepted  as  a 


ITS  CONVOCATION  207 

But  this  is  not  all.  St.  Leo  tells  the  Emperor  that 
Anatolius,  having  recognised  that  all  this  is  demanded 
and  expected  of  him/  is  to  sign  the  confession  of  the 
Common  Faith,  and  make  a  declaration  before  all  the 
clergy  and  the  whole  people — a  profession  of  faith  which 
is  to  be  '  publicly  notified  (1)  to  the  Apostolic  See,  and 
(2)  to  all  the  Lord's  priests  [i.e.  bishops]  and  Churches.' 
Further,  he  is  to  send  a  written  statement  as  soon  as 
possible,  plainly  (dihicide)  declaring  that  if  anyone 
believes  or  asserts  anything  else  concerning  the  Incar- 
nation of  the  Word  of  God  than  what  '  the  profession  of 
all  Catholics  and  my  own '  declares,  he  will  separate 
such  a  one  from  his  communion.  And  to  expedite  this 
important  matter,  he  says  he  is  sending  four  legates, 
whose  business  it  will  be  '  to  declare  the  exact  faith 
which  we  hold,  the  form  of  our  faith  [i.e.  the  Tome],  so 
that  if  the  Bishop  of  Constantinople  consents  to  the 
same  confession  of  faith,  with  his  whole  heart,  we  may 
feel  secure  and  rejoice  in  the  peace  of  the  Church.  If, 
however,  there  is  any  dissent  from  the  purity  of  our 
faith  and  the  authority  of  the  Fathers,'  a  Council  must 
be  held  in  Italy,  so  that  it  may  not  be  open  to  anyone 
to  talk  about  the  Nicene  Creed  and  yet  be  in  opposition 
to  it.2 

Now,  had  there  been  an  idea  that  there  was  the 
slightest  dogmatic  ground  for  denying  the  prerogative 
thus  claimed  by  Leo  of  dealing  with  the  Archbishop  of 
Constantinople  as  a  subject,  and  of  imposing  on  him  the 
Eoman  '  form  of  faith,'  it  is  not  possible  to  suppose  that 

standard  of  faith.  Leo's  letter  was  such  previous  to  any  conciliar 
acceptance  :  it  was  sucli  qua  Leo's. 

'  '  Expeti  desiderarique  ' — '  desiderari '  expressing  Leo's  feeling  that 
something  of  the  kind  ought  to  have  been  done  sooner. 

2  Ep.  69. 


208  COUNCIL   OF  CHALCEDON 

either  Theodosius  or  Anatolius  would  not  have  resented 
this  exercise  of  jurisdiction.  It  would  be  impossible  to 
imagine  a  more  extreme  case.  There  is  every  circum- 
stance that  could  emphasise  the  impossibility  of  such  a 
tremendous  assumption  (if  if  were  a  gratuitous  assump- 
tion) passing  muster  without  a  challenge.  The  arch- 
bishop in  question  was  not  naturally  disposed  to  submit 
quietly  to  anything  that  could  be  called  a  usurpation  for 
the  sake  of  uniting  against  a  common  foe,  for  he  had  a 
tender  spot  in  his  heart  for  the  party  of  Eutyches  ; 
neither  was  he  the  occupant  of  a  see  which  had  no 
ambition  or  no  political  friends,  for  it  was  the  Imperial 
see,  and  was  soon  about  to  attempt  a  rise  in  the  scale 
of  patriarchal  honour  over  Alexandria  and  Antioch. 
Here,  too,  was  an  Emperor  not  favourable  to  Leo  and 
the  orthodox  party,  but  under  the  influence  of  Dioscorus 
and  his  friends.  Such  were  the  circumstances,  and 
they  simply  preclude  the  idea  that  there  was  not  ample 
recognition  of  the  headship  of  the  See  of  St  Peter  on 
which  St.  Leo  could  work ;  for  Leo  was  neither  a  dullard 
nor  void  of  care  for  the  faith.  He  lived  for  the  faith, 
and  he  knew  something  of  men. 

To  Pulcheria  Leo  wrote  to  exactly  the  same  eft'ect. 
Anatolius  must  consent  to  the  letter  of  Cyril  and  to  the 
Tome,  and  must  without  delay  acknowledge  the  '  unskilful 
folly '  displayed  by  the  definition  of  the  Bobber- Synod. 
And  the  reason  he  gives  is  the  same  as  Leo  XIII.  would 
give  under  similar  circumstances,  viz.  '  because  both  my 
confession  of  faith  and  that  of  the  holy  Fathers  con- 
cerning the  Incarnation  of  the  Lord  is  in  all  respects 
concordant  and  one.'  ^ 

1  Ep.  70.     Some  of  the  best  MSS.  make  Leo  say  that  Anatolius  is  to 
acquiesce  in  Cyril's  letter  'vel  epistolae  mese,  &c.'     There  can,  however, 


ITS  CONVOCATION  209 

At  the  same  time  he  wrote  to  the  Archimandrites  of 
Constantinople  (a  still  stronger  step  in  some  respects), 
and  complained  of  Anatolius  having  given  no  sign,  as 
if  there  had  been  no  scandals  connected  with  Constan- 
tinople. 

Leo  seems  to  have  had  no  fear  that  he  was  placing 
the  cause  nearest  to  his  heart,  the  maintenance  of  the 
'  peerless  sacrament  of  the  faith,'  in  any  jeopardy.  If 
ever  there  was  a  case  in  which  the  authority  of  the 
Apostolic  See  needed  to  come  forward,  it  was  here,  and 
if  ever  there  was  one  case  more  than  another  in  which 
that  authority  was  used  with  holy  boldness  and  single- 
ness of  aim,  it  was  this.  The  result  was  everything 
that  could  be  wished,  owing  (we  know  not  how  far)  to 
the  accident  of  Theodosius's  death,  which  occurred  a  week 
or  two  after  Leo  had  thus  written.  The  legates  appear 
to  have  acted  promptly,  and  in  November  the  Empress 
Pulcheria  was  able  to  announce  to  Leo  that  '  Anatolius 
embraces  the  apostolical  confession  of  your  letter,'  and 
has  without  delay  signed  the  dogmatic  epistle  to  Flavian, 
which  she  calls  '  the  letter  of  the  Catholic  faith.' 

be  no  doubt  that  if  '  vel '  is  the  true  reading,  it  = '  and.'  The  previous 
letter,  just  quoted,  shows  this.  And  it  is  quite  certain  that  '  vel '  = 
•  and '  in  Ep.  67,  where  Leo  tells  the  Bishop  of  Aries  that  the  Tome 
and  ('  vel ')  Cyril's  letter  are  to  be  made  known  to  all.  And  again  in  Ej). 
131  '  vel '  is  used  for  '  and.'  Dr.  Bright  here  again  thinks  this  would 
dispose  of  the  idea  that  the  Tome  was  infallible  qua  Leo's.  He  says 
{Roman  See,  p.  180) :  '  Cyril's  letter  and  the  Tome  are  put  side  by  side.' 
Exactly :  the  one  was  a  standard  of  faith  because  of  its  conciliar 
acceptance  ;  the  other,  apart  from  such  acceptance.  That  is  to  say, 
Cyril's  letter  had  already  been  erected  into  a  standard  of  faith ;  the 
Tome,  in  taking  rank  with  it,  was  proclaiming  itself  also  a  test  of 
orthodoxy  for  the  Archbishop  of  Constantinople.  This  would  hold  good 
even  if  Ballerini's  remark  about '  vel '  were  not  true.  But,  I  repeat,  the 
previous  letter  just  quoted  {Ei^.  67)  is  decisive. 

P 


210  COUNCIL   OF  CHALCEDON 

Anatolius's  letters  to   Leo   are   unfortunately   lost.^ 
Leo  answered  him  and  congratulated   him,  and,  after 
giving  directions  about  the  reception  of  such  bishops  as 
had  given  way  at  the  Latrocinium,  he  says,  *  the  favour 
of  communion  with  us  is  to  be  neither  harshly  denied 
nor  rashly  bestowed.^     He  says  that  he  had  received 
Eusebius  into  communion,  and  therefore  requests  Ana- 
tolius  to  have  Eusebius's   Church   taken   care  of,  and 
desires  that  all  should  know  that  Anatolius  has  been 
received  into  communion  with  Eome,  '  that  those  who 
serve  our  God  may  rejoice  that  your  peace  has  been  con- 
cluded ivith  the  Apostolic  See'     He   further  tells  the 
Emperor  that  he  has  directed  the  legates  to  co-operate 
with  Anatolius,^  and  in  another  letter  he  tells  Anatolius 
that  he  joins  him  with  them  in  the  execution  of  his 
decree,^   and    gives    his    directions    about    the   lapsed 
bishops  in  general  and  the  leaders  in  particular.     As 
regards  the  latter,  if  they  repent  he  '  reserves '  their 
case  '  for  the  maturer  counsels  of  the  Apostolic  See,'  ^ 
and  bids  Anatolius  '  to  strive  to  execute  such  things  as 
befit  the  Church  of  God '  in  union  with  his  own  legates. 
At  the  same  time,  as  if,  in  God's  providence,  history 
was  to  settle  for  those  who  search  it  the  lines  of  Papal 
jurisdiction,  St.  Leo  exercised  the  same  authority  over 

•  There  is,  however,  a  valuable  fragment  of  the  minutes  of  the 
Council  held  at  Constantinople,  in  which  Anatolius  publicly  pronounced 
his  adhesion  to  Leo's  Tome,  which  was  read  through.  This  fragment  is 
contained  in  a  Life  of  Abundius,  the  legate  sent  to  Constantinople  for  the 
purpose.  He  speaks  of  Leo  '  who  sent  us  from  Eome  to  teach  {ad 
insinuand'um)  the  Catholic  faith  to  all '  Cf.  Ball.  Leon.  Ep.  i.  1487, 
or  Mansi,  vii.  775-778. 

2  Ep.  80.  '  Ep.  83. 

'  '  Executionem  nostr£e  dispositionis.  Ep. 85.  {Cf.  the  UBeoidispositio 
for  an  imperial  edict  in  the  same  series  of  letters,  viz.  E2}.  91.) 

»  Ep.  86.  2. 


ITS   CONVOCATION  211 

the  members  of  the  archdiocese  of  Constantinople  that 
Zozimus  did  over  Africa.  Two  Constantinopolitan 
priests  had  repaired  to  Kome  to  clear  themselves  of  sus- 
picion as  to  heresy,  and  Leo  sent  them  back,  saying  that 

*  at  great  cost  they  had  opened  their  hearts  to  [literally 
i7i]  the  Apostolic  See,  and  shown  that  they  receive 
nothing  save  what  we,  by  the  teaching  of  the  Holy 
Spirit,  have  both  learned  and  teach  ;  '  and  he  exhorts 
Anatolius  to  assist  them,  as  '  being  adorned  with  the 
favour  of  Apostolical  communion,'  i.e.  communion  with 
the  Apostolic  See.^ 

It  is  difficult  to  imagine  a  more  perfect  anticipation 
of  Catholic  ecclesiastical  life  in  the  nineteenth  century. 
And  so  far  there  is  not  a  solitary  protest  recorded,  not  a 
distant  idea  that  St.  Leo  was  doing  more  than  exercising 
his  proper  prerogative  in  a  natural  way,  and  fulfilling 
the  responsibilities  of  his  sacred  and  divinely  instituted 
office. 

A  very  important  step  was  now  taken  by  the  new 
archbishop.     For  the  second  time  he  called  together  his 

*  home-synod,'  ^  and  the  bishops  not  merely  themselves 
signed  the  Tome  or  letter  to  Flavian,  but  sent  it  to  the 
absent  metropolitans. 

Abundius,  the  Papal  legate,  thereupon  returned  from 
Constantinople,  and  obtained,  in  accordance  with  the 
request  of  Leo,  the  subscription  of  the  metropolitan  of 
Milan  and  his  Synod  to  the  Pope's  dogmatic  epistle. 
The  same  had  already  been  obtained  from  the  provinces 
of  Gaul. 

So  that  this  letter  to  Flavian,  which  had  been  sup- 

'  Ep.  87. 

2  Consisting  of  the  bishops  sojourning  at  and  living  around  Con- 
stantinople. 

p  2 


^12  COUNCIL   OF   CHALCEDON 

pressed  at  the  Robber-Council  had  now  received  the 
signatures  of  well-nigh  the  whole  Christian  world.  It 
was  issued  as  an  ex  cathedra  pronouncement  on  the 
part  of  the  Pope  ;  it  had  now  been  received  as  the 
dogmatic  expression  of  Christian  belief  at  Constantinople, 
at  Antioch,'  and  in  the  entire  West.  No  bishop  who 
had  signed  it  could  henceforth  treat  its  teaching  as  an 
open  question  ;  ^  it  only  remained  to  issue  a  definition  in 
accordance  with  it,  and  to  induce  the  Egyptians  to  with- 
draw their  complicity  with  Dioscorus  and  his  teaching, 
and  to  arrange  the  return  of  the  lapsed  but  penitent 
bishops.  St.  Leo  had  already  laid  down  the  conditions 
of  their  return,  but  had  made  an  exception  in  the  case  of 
the  ringleaders  at  Ephesus.  This,  however,  he  also 
eventually  left  to  the  discretion  of  the  Council  on  appli- 
cation from  Pulcheria.^ 

2.  Such  were  the  circumstances  under  which  Ana- 
tolius  took  his  seat.  But  how  did  matters  stand  with 
Theodoret  ?  He  had  been  condemned  by  Dioscorus  at 
the  Eobber- Synod.  Thereupon  he  appealed  to  Rome. 
He  wrote  to  Leo,"*  and  said  '  If  Paul,  the  herald  of  the 
truth,  the  trumpet  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  betook  himself 
(lit.  ran)  to  the  great  Peter,  so  that  from  him  he  might 
convey  to  those  in  Antioch  who  doubted  about  the  proper 
observance  of  the  law  the  solution  of  their  difficulty, 
much  more  do  we  in  our  littleness  fly  to  your  Apostolic 
throne,  that  from  you  we  may  get  healing  for  the 
wounds  of  the  Church.  For  on  all  accounts  the  primacy 
fitly  belongs  to  you.  For  your  throne  is  adorned  with 
many  advantages.'  He  then  enumerates  the  glories  of 
the  Apostolic  throne.     Its  seat,  the  city  of  Rome,  has  a 

•  Leon.  Ep.  88.  ^  c/.  Appendix  on  the  Tome,  p.  378. 

3  El).  85.  *  Theodor.  Ep.  113.     Leon.  Ep.  52. 


ITS   CONVOCATION  213 

harvest  of  blessings  as  compared  with  others.  They 
indeed  may  have  size  and  beauty  and  a  multitude  of  in- 
habitants, or  none  of  these,  but  the  splendour  of  certain 
spiritual  graces.  But  Eome  has  both.  *  The  giver  of  good 
things  has  bestowed  on  yours  a  vast  crop  of  blessings. 
For  it  is  the  greatest  of  all  cities  and  the  most  splendid, 
presiding  over  the  world, ^  and  is  swollen  with  inhabi- 
tants, and  in  addition  to  all  this  it  has  produced  a  still 
prevailing  sovereignty  -  and  has  given  its  own  name  to 
its  subjects.  But  [unlike  other  cities  which  have  only 
one  or  the  other  of  the  advantages  mentioned]  the  faith 
adorns  it  above  all  others,^  and  of  this  the  divine  Apostle 
is  an  unimpeachable  witness  when  he  cried  aloud  '  Your 
faith  is  announced  in  the  whole  world ; '  but  if  immedi- 
ately after  receiving  the  seeds  of  the  saving  doctrine  it 
was  laden  with  such  wonderful  fruits,  what  terms  suffice 
to  do  justice  to  the  religion  which  prevails  within  it 
now?  It  has,  moreover,  the  tombs  of  the  common 
fathers  and  teachers  of  the  truth,  Peter  and  Paul, 
illuminating  the  souls  of  the  faithful.  Now,  this  thrice 
blessed  and  divine  pair  arose  indeed  in  the  East  and 
shed  their  rays  on  every  side,  but  gladly  came  to  the 
end  of  their  days  in  the  West,  and  thence  they  illuminate 
the  whole  world.  These  [Apostles]  have  rendered  your 
throne  most  illustrious.  This  is  the  culminating  point 
of  your  privileges.  Further  their  God  has  even  now 
shed  light  on  their  throne,  by  placing  in  it  your  Holiness 
[who  is]  shedding  forth  the  rays  of  orthodoxy.' 

'  T7JS  otKouMeVrjs  irpo/coflTj/ue'i/Tj  :  for  the  use  of  the  genitive,  cf.  irpo- 
Kad7}fi4vr]  rf/s  dLyairris  (Ign.). 

2  '  Sovereignty  ' :  thus  translated  by  Dr.  Bright  {Roman  See,  p.  191, 
note).     The  Greek  is  rjyefjLouiav. 

'  5ia(pep6uTa}s,  in  a  distinct  and  special  way.  Cf.  Liddell  and  Scott,  s.v. 


214  COUNCIL   OF  CHALCEDON 

It  will  be  seen  from  the  above  quotations  that 
Theodoret  taught  that  St.  Peter  was  treated  as  a  court 
of  appeal  by  St.  Paul  himself  in  certain  matters  ;  that 
the  whole  world  was  illumined  with  the  doctrine  of  St. 
Peter  and  St.  Paul ;  that  the  see  of  Eome  was  the  see 
of  the  blessed  Apostles  Peter  and  Paul,  but  (as  the 
opening  sentence  shows)  of  St.  Peter  in  a  peculiar  sense. 
Moreover,  Theodoret  hands  on  a  truth  which  had  found 
expression  in  St.  Cyprian  and  other  Fathers,  viz.  that 
the  praise  accorded  by  St.  Paul  to  the  Church  at  Eome 
in  the  opening  of  his  Epistle  to  the  Eomans  described  a 
unique  and  abiding  fact,^  and,  further,  that  it  was  not 
the  Imperial  position  of  the  city  of  Eome  that  gave  to 
the  See  its  predominant  character,  but  its  being  the  see 
of  the  two  Apostles,  one  of  whom,  however,  was  so  sub- 
ordinate to  the  other  that  he  conveyed  the  necessary 
teaching  to  the  Christians  at  Antioch/?'om  the  other ^  i.e. 
from  Peter. 

Theodoret  then  proceeds  to  express  his  agreement 
with  the  Tome  of  Leo,  showing  clearly  in  a  single  sentence 
that  he  repudiated  both  Nestor ian  and  Eutychian  heresy, 
and  says  that  he  joyfully  recognises  '  the  grace  of  the 
Holy  Spirit  speaking  through  '  Leo.  He  then  describes 
his  own  condemnation  by  Dioscorus,  adding,  *  But  I 
await  the  sentence  of  your  Apostolic  throne.'  He 
desires  to  know  from  Leo  whether  he  is  to  acquiesce  in 
this  unjust  deposition  or  not.  '  For  I  await '  (he  repeats) 
'  your  sentence,  and  if  you  should  command  me  to  abide 
by  the  adverse  decision,  I  abide  by  it,  and  will  hence- 
forth trouble  no  man,  but  wait  for  the  just  judgment 
of  our  God  and  Saviour.'  He  had  said  also,  '  I  beseech 
and  entreat  your  Holiness  that  your  upright  and  just 

'  Cf.  Cyprian,  Epi?.  30,  59,  60  (Hartel). 


ITS  CONVOCATION  215 

tribunal  would  assist  me,  who  am  appealing  to  it/  and 
would  bid  me  come  to  you  and  show  that  my  teaching 
treads  in  the  footsteps  of  the  Apostles  '  (c.  5).^ 

Theodoret  wrote  also  to  Eenatus,  the  priest  of  the 
Eoman  Church  who  had  been  sent  as  legate  to  Ephesus, 
but  was  now  dead.  To  him  he  said  :  '  Concerning  this 
case,  I  beseech  your  Holiness  that  you  would  persuade 
the  most  holy  and  blessed  archbishop  to  use  his  Apo- 
stolic authority,  and  bid  me  fly  to  your  Council,'  i.e.  the 
Council  which  the  Pope  used  in  the  determing-tion  of 
greater  causes,  to  which  Flavian  also  appealed. 

Its  authority  was  derived  from  the  authority  of  the 
Holy  See,  and  that  it  was  the  authority  of  the  Holy  See 
which  Theodoret  was  invoking  is  certain,  both  from  the 
expression  '  his  Apostolic  authority,'  and  from  the  words 
that  follow.  He  says  that  he  flies  to  that  Council,  '  for 
that  most  holy  See  has  the  sovereignty  over  the  Churches 
which  are  in  the  whole  world  on  many  accounts ;  and 
before  all  these,  in  that  it  has  remained  free  from  the 
stain  of  heresy  and  none  has  ever  sat  in  it  with  thoughts 
contrary  [to  the  faith] ;  it  has  kept  the  Apostolic  grace 
whole  and  uncorrupt.'  He  then  expresses  his  readiness 
to  acquiesce  in  its  judgment,  whatever  it  may  be.^  It  is 
clear  from  this  that  it  was  not  the  judgment  of  the  Synod 

'  eiriKaXovfi^vcf},  the  technical  term  for  an  appeal. 

2  Ep.  113. 

*  Ixei  yap  6  travayios  QpSvos  iKelvos  rSiv  Kara  r^v  oiKovitievrit/  iKK\T)(nwv 
t)]v  ^yijxoviav  Sio  ivoWa.  k.  t.  A.  {Ep.  116).  'Hy^ixovia  is  the  word  used  in 
Ep.  92  for  the  sovereignty  of  the  Imperial  city  over  the  world  in  the 
civil  order.  It  may  be  noticed  that  the  paramount  reason  for  exalting 
the  See  of  Rome  is,  with  Theodoret,  that  it  has  never  erred  from  the 
faith,  but  has  kept  '  the  Apostolic  grace  whole  and  uncorrupt.'  The 
peculiar  maintenance  of  the  faith  was  due  to  a  special  grace.  Apostolic 
grace  is  not  the  grace  of  the  Episcopate  simply,  but  of  the  See  of  the 
Apostles  Peter  and  Paul,  as  his  previous  letter  shows,  and  particularly 


216  COUNCIL   OF  CHALCEDON 

at  Rome  in  itself  that  he  sought,  but  the  judgment  of  the 
Sovereign  Pontiff,  expressed,  as  it  was  wont  to  be,  in 
Synod.  The  Synod  was  the  apparatus,  the  machinery, 
the  setting  of  the  Papal  judgment.  The  bishops  of  this 
Synod  could  not  be  considered  infallible  as  compared 
with  other  Synods,  except  by  reason  of  their  relation- 
ship to  the  Holy  See.  It  was  the  infallibility  of  that 
see  on  which  he  distinctly  placed  reliance.  It  never  had 
gone  wrong  ;  its  faith  had  been  something  special  as 
compargd  with  that  of  all  other  sees  from  the  days  when 
St.  Paul  spoke  of  it  until  now.  The  inference  is  that  it 
will  not  go  ivrong  now.  Theodoret  salutes  its  decision 
on  the  matter  of  faith  as  the  teaching  of  the  Holy  Ghost — 
'  the  Holy  Spirit  speaking  through  you  '  are  his  words. 

At  the  same  time  he  wrote  to  the  '  Patrician ' 
Anatolius  to  induce  him  to  persuade  the  Emperor  to  allow 
him  (since  a  bishop  could  not  move  without  Imperial 
leave  and  sometimes  the  assistance  of  the  Imperial 
purse)  *to  go  to  the  West  and  be  judged  by  those 
bishops  most  beloved  of  God,'  i.e,  the  bishops  of  the 
Roman  Synod.  Now  Theodoret  was  not  simpleton 
enough  to  ask  the  Emperor's  leave  for  anything  that 
contravened  the  laws  of  the  Church  as  understood  in  the 
East ;  and  yet  he  did  ask  Anatolius  to  get  him  leave  to 
have  his  case  tried  at  Rome.  From  this  we  may  justly 
conclude  that  the  transference  of  the  case  of  a  Greek 
bishop  to  Rome  was  not  considered  to  be  in  contra- 
vention of  the  Church's  laws.  It  was  not  here  the  case 
of  anything  claimed  by  the  Pope,  but  a  glimpse  of  how 
Greek  bishops  understood  the  matter.     These  Western 

of  the  See  of  Peter,  as  the  opening  of  the  same  letter  proves.  As 
Paul  repaired  to  Peter,  so  Theodoret  repairs  to  the  Apostolic  throne,  i.e. 
the  See  of  Peter. 


ITS   CONVOCATION  217 

bishops  '  most  beloved  of  God  '  could  possess  no  rights 
over  an  Eastern  bishop,  except  as  being  the  Council  of 
the  sovereign  ruler  of  the  Church,  as  Theodoret  called 
the  Koman  Pontiff.^  But  as  the  custom  was  ever  to 
exercise  the  Pontifical  authority  by  means  of  a  Council 
it  was  all  one  to  appeal  to  the  Episcopal  Synod  at  Kome 
or  to  the  Bishop  of  Kome  himself.  Theodoret  was 
in  distress,  and  disposed  to  lean  on  any  arm  that  was 
likely  to  support  him.  This  may  be  freely  granted  and 
may  be  thought  to  discount  somewhat  his  expressions  of 
loyalty  to  Rome.  In  fact  no  one  ever  does  appeal  to  any 
authority  except  when  in  some  distress.  But  it  must  be 
remembered  that  he  had  to  save  his  position  with  others, 
and  that  he  was  both  an  historian  and  (in  spite  of  the 
bad  part  he  took  for  a  time  against  Cyril)  a  theologian 
of  no  mean  order.  Men  in  his  circumstances  do  not 
appeal  to  a  court  that  nobody  recognises,  nor  could  there 
be  any  reason  for  emphasising  the  doctrine  concerning 
the  relation  of  Peter  to  the  See  of  Rome  in  making  his 
appeal,  if  it  was  not  a  dogma  generally  accepted.  He 
was  a  Greek  bishop  and  belonged  to  the  Antiochene 
jurisdiction.  His  evidence,  therefore,  must  be  allowed 
to  take  a  conspicuous  place  in  the  great  body  of  proof 
which  we  have  seen  to  be  accumulating,  as  our  narrative 
proceeds,  to  the  effect  that  Rome  as  the  See  of  Peter 
held  the  sovereignty  of  the  whole  Church  in  its  hands, 
however  imperfectly  at  particular  times  and  by  particular 
persons  the  measure  of  its  jurisdiction  might  be  understood. 
The  Vatican  teaching  was  there  in  substance  ;  indeed  it 
would  be  difficult  to  express  in  clearer  terms,  using  the 
language  of  that  age,  the  teaching  of  the  Vatican  Council 
concerning  the  relationship  of  the  Holy  See  to  the  rest 

'  Ep.  116.     Cf.  Ballerini,  Ohs.  in  Diss.  x.  Quesnelli,  §  3. 


218  COUNCIL  OF  CHALCEDON 

of  the  Church  than  has  been  done  by  Theodoret.  Accord- 
ing to  him  (as  we  have  now  seen)  that  see  was  '  the  all- 
holy  throne  ' ;  it  was  '  the  Apostolic  Throne  ' ;  it  was  the 
See  of  St.  Peter  and  St.  Paul ;  it  '  held  the  sovereignty 
over  the  Churches  throughout  the  world  ' ;  and  it  was  the 
one  pure,  true  channel  of  the  Church's  faith. 

It  seems  that  the  writings  which  Theodoret  promised 
to  send  to  Leo  for  inspection  and  judgment  did  not 
reach  Kome  until  after  the  legates  had  left  for  the  East ; 
but  on  receiving  them  Leo  at  once  passed  sentence  in 
Theodoret's  favour.  He  was  worthy  to  be  restored  to  his 
see,  which,  as  a  matter  of  course,  it  would  rest  with  the 
Council  to  effect.^  Both  St.  Leo  and  the  Commissioners 
speak  of  the  Papal  '  judgment.'  ^  So  that  there  can  be  no 
doubt  that  the  Sovereign  Pontiff  passed  actual  sentence 
on  Theodoret's  case  as  that  of  a  formal  appeal  on  his 
part.  We  may  assume  that  there  was  a  careful  exami- 
nation of  the  case  at  Rome,  considering  the  caution 
invariably  exercised  by  this  great  Pontiff  in  admitting 
anyone  to  communion  who  had  been  suspected  of 
heresy.  And  Theodoret  had  exhibited  sympathy  with 
Nestorius  and  opposed  Cyril,  though  he  had  detached 
himself  from  all  connivance  with  heresy  when  the  recon- 
ciliation took  place  between  St.  Cyril  and  John  of 
Antioch.  It  is  therefore  in  the  highest  degree  im- 
probable that  St.  Leo  would  pass  judgment  without 
careful  and,  presumably,  conciliar  examination  of  his 
present  teaching.  At  the  same  time  there  was  a  certain 
incompleteness  about  the  affair,  seeing  that  Theodoret 
had  not  appeared  at  Rome  in  person,  owing  to  his 
having  been  cited  to  Nicsea  (afterwards  to  Chalcedon) ; 
and   he   had   not   definitely    anathematised    Nestorius, 

»  Leon.  Ep.  11.  '^  Ep.  120,  §  5.     Mansi,  vii.  189. 


ITS   CONVOCATION  219 

although  St.  Leo  might  well  presume  that  he  was  prepared 
to  do  so  when  opportunity  offered,  as  Anatolius  had  been 
compelled  by  Leo  to  anathematise  Eutyches.  When, 
therefore,  Theodoret  came  to  Chalcedon,  he  was  in  the 
position  of  a  man  whose  right  to  the  position  of  bishop 
had  been  juridically  declared  by  the  Papal  judgment,  but 
whose  actual  restoration  would  be  completed  at  the 
Synod. ^  He  was  entitled  to  act  as  bishop  if  he  complied 
with  the  usual  forms,  and  as  such  to  be  the  accuser  of 
Dioscorus. 


Note  on  Theodoeet's  Use  of  rjyefjLoria. 

In  a  note  on  Theodoret's  letter  to  the  priest  Eenatus, 
quoted  above,  Dr.  Bright  says :  '  In  this  letter  the  Eoman  see  is 
said  to  have  "  on  many  accounts  the  presidency,  rrjv  rjyejxovCav^ 
over  all  Churches."  Mr.  Rivington  mistranslates  this  by 
his  favourite  "sovereignty"'  {Roman  See,  p.  193,  n.  1).  Now 
Liddell  and  Scott's  translation  of  this  word  is  '  the  hegemony 
or  sovereignty  of  one  state  over  a  number  of  subordinates ' 
(s.v.  11.)  ;  and,  again,  it  is  (they  say)  *  used  to  translate  the 
Eoman  impermm  '  (II.  b).  And  certainly  in  Byzantine  Greek 
rjye/jLovia  and  apxt]  are  used  interchangeably  :  e.g.  MapKiavos .  . . 
T-^v 'Pw/Atttwv dp)(Yjv'7r€pLf3dW€TaL.  '^ A  S'  ovv  KOL  vTT  avTiS  TreTrpaKTaL 
T(t)v  cwcov  rjyefjiOvcvovTL  (Evagr.  H.  E.  i.  22).  Tcuv  aTpaTioiTLKwv 
Tayixdroiv  r}yovfX€i'o<;  (ibid.  ii.  8).  6  Z^vtuv  Ste/i-etre  Kparcov  rrj<s 
rjyefxovta';,  i.e.  the  Empire  {ibid.  ii.  17).  And  when  Theodoret 
in  a  previous  letter  had  used  -j^ye/xovta  of  the  superiority 
of  the  city  of  Eome  over  other  cities  Dr.  Bright  him- 
self renders  the  word  in  that  letter  by  '  sovereignty ' 
{Roman  See,  p.  192).  In  the  passage  in  Thucydides  to  which 
Dr.  Bright  refers,  in  another  ^Novk' {Way marks,  ^.  213),  a 
distinction  is  drawn  between  rjye/jiovLa  and  dpxrj,  which  was 
very  much  lost  in  the  800  years  that  intervened  between 
•  Cf.  Ballerini,  Obs.  in  Diss.  x.  Quesnelli,  §  10. 


220  COUNCIL   OF   CHALCEDON 

Thucydides  and  the  Byzantine  Greek  of  the  Councils  of 
Ephesus  and  Chalcedon.  So  in  Homer,  from  whom  the 
distance  downwards  in  time  was  not  as  great  as  between 
Thucydides  and  later  Byzantine  Greek,  the  verbal  form 
riy€fj.ov€v(D  almost  always  has  its  original  sense  of  merely 
leading,  whereas  in  Thucydides  it  is  already  attaching  to 
itself  the  meaning  of  rule,  command,  authority  (iii.  61). 
In  Greek  Testament  use  it  has  generally  the  meaning  of 
government  (Matth.  xxvii.  2,  Luke  ii.  2,  Acts  xxiii.  24), 
and  the  participial  form  is  translated  by  the  A.  V. '  those  that 
have  the  rule  over  you  '  in  Heb.  xiii.  7.  In  Byzantine  Greek, 
with  which  we  have  to  do,  it  generally  implies  effective 
jurisdiction.  It  is  used  as  a  synonym  of  ap)(^  in  describing 
the  relation  of  Eutyches  to  his  monastery.  Compare  the 
votes  of  Domnus  and  Eusebius  in  Mansi,  vi.  836,  with  that 
of  Barsumas,  vi.  861.  The  two  former  use  rjyifxovta,  the  latter, 
apx^Lv,  of  the  same  relation. 


CHAPTEK  II 

THE    DEPOSITION     OF     DIOSCORUS 

§  1.  Placed  on  Trial 

The  great  Council  met,  not,  as  was  originally  intended, 
at  Nicaea,  but  at  Chalcedon,  in  order  that  the  Emperor 
might  attend  to  his  Imperial  affairs  and  yet  be  near 
at  hand  in  case  of  need.  The  Papal  legates  had  stipu- 
lated that  the  Emperor  should  attend.  Their  experience 
of  the  Latrocinium  led  to  this  request.  The  Council 
was  in  reality  summoned,  as  Evagrius  puts  the  matter 
in  brief,  because  the  legates  of  Leo,  who  were  in  Con- 
stantinople at  the  time  of  Marcian's  accession  to  the 
throne,  *  said  that  Dioscorus  at  the  second  Council  in 
Ephesus  had  not  accepted  the  Tome  of  Leo,  which  was  a 
definition  of  the  orthodox  faith,^  and  because  those  who 
had  been  insulted  by  Dioscorus  entreated  that  their 
affairs  might  be  synodically  adjudged.'  ^ 

Leo  wrote  to  Anatolius  of  Constantinople  telling  him 
that  in  the  case  of  any  bishops  who  repented  of  their 
part  in  the  Ephesine  gathering,  which  was  not  worthy 
of  the  name  of  a  Synod,  the  communion  of  the  Church 
was   to  be  restored  to   them,  on   condition   that   they 

'  H.  E.  ii.  §  2  :  rhu  AeovTOS  rojxov  opOoSo^tas  '6pov  rvyxdvopTa. 

^  Harnack  says  that  '  Dioscorus  had  to  submit  to  a  judicial  process 
of  an  extremely  disgraceful  and  unjust  kind'  (Hist,  of  Dogma,  iv.  217, 
Tr.).  He  gives  no  proof.  I  have  therefore  here  given  a  full  account  of 
the  proceedings — the  best  answer  to  Harnack. 


222  COUNCIL   OF  CHALCEDON 

distinctly  anathematised  Eutyches  and  his  teaching. 
But  an  exception  was  to  be  made  in  the  case  of  Dioscorus, 
as  the  ringleader.  If  he  showed  signs  of  repentance, 
his  case  was  to  be  *  reserved  for  the  maturer  counsels  of 
the  Apostolic  See.'^ 

It  must  be  remembered,  moreover,  that  the  whole 
case  turned  on  the  assertion  by  Dioscorus  and  the  denial 
by  Leo,  that  the  teaching  of  Eutyches  was  merely  a 
reflection  of  Cyril's.  Cyril's  teaching  was  the  teaching 
of  the  Church,  not  because  it  was  Cyril's  but  because,  as 
expounded  in  his  two  letters  to  Nestorius  read  at 
Ephesus  in  431,  it  had  been  sanctioned  by  the  Church. 
It  was  the  teaching  of  Kome.  The  bishops  in  the 
Council  now  gathered  together,  referred  to  this  when  they 
exclaimed  :  '  Celestine  confirmed  what  Cyril  said  ;  Xystus 
confirmed  what  Cyril  said,'  i.e.  two  successive  Popes  con- 
firmed his  teaching.  But  on  Cyril's  teaching  Eutyches 
had  professedly  built  his  heresy  and  claimed  that  his 
version  of  that  teaching  represented  the  teaching  of  Nicsea. 
Leo  had  written  his  Tome  to  show  that  the  Nicene  faith 
was  mispresented  by  Eutyches.  The  acceptance  of  this 
Tome  had  now  been  made  the  touchstone  of  orthodoxy, 
and  the  Council  met  to  enforce  this  view  of  the  matter. 
In  the  words  of  the  Archbishop  of  Constantinople  him- 
self, in  his  letter  of  December,  the  Council  had  *  to  drive 
away  all  novelty  by  confirming  with  a  common  decision 
the  faith  of  the  blessed   fathers  [the  Nicene]  and   the 

'  Leon.  Ep.  85.  The  Pontiff  writes  of  '  those  who  claimed  the 
highest  place  in  the  same  unhappy  Synod ' — but  it  is  evidently 
Dioscorus  that  he  has  in  view.  Anyhow,  Juvenal  and  Thalassius,  who 
might  be  also  alluded  to,  showed  that  they  did  not  come  under  the  same 
category.  Leo  thus  consented  beforehand  to  the  Synodical  deposition 
of  Dioscorus,  but  did  not  give  the  Synod  power  to  finally  absolve 
him  if  he  repented. 


DIOSCORUS   ACCUSED  223 

Epistle  of  your  Holiness  consonant  with  this.'  ^  This, 
and  the  restoration  of  those  bishops  who  had  been 
illegitimately  excluded  from  their  sees  and  the  condem- 
nation or  absolution  as  the  case  might  be,  of  those 
bishops  who  had  subscribed  to  the  condemnation  of 
Flavian  by  putting  their  signatures  to  a  blank  paper, 
was  the  proper  and  the  only  regular  business  of  the 
Council. 

The  bishops  met  in  the  church  of  St.  Euphemia,  on 
whose  intercession  they  avowed  their  reliance,  and  on 
whose  altar  they  placed  their  definition  that  (as  they 
afterwards  told  the  Emperor,  and  St.  Leo)  it  might  be 
presented  through  her  to  Almighty  God  before  all  saints 
and  angels.  In  other  ^Yords,  the  whole  Church  in  solemn 
assembly  avowed  their  reliance  on  the  intercessory  media- 
tion of  a  great  local  saint."^ 

There  were  at  least  six  hundred  bishops  present,  the 
largest  number  that  had  ever  met  in  Council.  They 
were,  almost  to  a  man.  Eastern  prelates,  the  West  being 
sufficiently  represented  by  legates  from  Eome.  The  scene 
of  their  meeting  is  described  in  glowing  terms  by 
Evagrius  and  is  to  this  day  one  of  the  most  exquisite 
spots  in  that  beautiful  but  ill-fated  region.  The  bishops 
sat  in  a  circle  stretching  from  the  sanctuary  into  the 
nave  and  a  copy  of  the  Holy  Gospels  was  placed  in  the 
midst. 

Dioscorus  at  once  took  his  seat,  as  Archbishop  of 
Alexandria,  on  the  right  hand  of  the  Commissioners 
and  Senate,  with  Juvenal  of  Jerusalem  ;  while  the  Papal 
legates    (Paschasinus,   whom   the   Pope  had  sent  from 

'  Leon.  Ep.  101,  §  1. 

2  For  the    miracles   she   was   considered   to    have  performed    see 
Evagrius,  H.  E.  ii.  3. 


224  COUNCIL  OF    CHALCEDON 

Sicily,  and  Lucentius,  both  bishops,  with  the  presbyter 
Boniface)  sat  on  the  left,  the  side  of  honour,  with 
Anatolius,  Maximus  of  Antioch,  Thalassius  of  Csesarea 
Cappadocia  and  Stephen  of  Ephesus.  Dioscorus  had — 
some  little  while  before,  though  it  is  difficult  to  be  sure  of 
the  exact  time— executed  the  farce  of  excommunicating 
St.  Leo— an  act  of  madness  which  eventually  afforded 
the  bishops  their  chief  ground  for  deciding  upon  his  own 
excommunication.  Whether  by  this  means  he  thought 
to  make  it  technically  impossible  for  the  legates  to  sit 
and  condemn  him,  or  whether  he  acted  out  of  mere 
bravado  to  show  what  a  Bishop  of  Alexandria  could  do, 
and  by  way  of  insulting  the  Apostolic  See,  it  is  impossible 
to  say.  He  now  sat  down  in  the  place  of  honour  as  the 
occupant  of  the  second  see  of  Christendom. 

His  action  naturally  produced  a  scene  :  and  it  gave  an 
occasion  for  showing  the  general  acquiescence  of  the 
Council  in  the  position  of  the  Bishop  of  Kome  as  their 
head.  The  Papal  legates  at  once  stepped  into  the  centre 
and  said  that  they  held  instructions  from  '  the  most 
blessed  and  Apostolic  Bishop  of  the  city  of  Eome,  ivhois 
the  head  of  all  the  Churches,'  to  the  effect  that  Dioscorus 
was  not  to  '  sit  with  the  Council.'  They  threatened  to 
withdraw  unless  Dioscorus  was  ordered  out.^  The  Com- 
missioners endeavoured  to  induce  the  legates  to  specify 
the  charges  brought  against  Dioscorus,  which,  however, 
they  refused  to  do.  They  refused  to  act  as  accusers, 
Lucentius  said.  '  Let  him  give  an  account  of  his  own 
judgment,  for  he  usurped  the  character  of  judge  which  did 

'  fjLT]  (TvyKaQ^aQij  r^  (rvviSpicf}  (Mansi,  vi,  581).  The  legates  added  to 
this  that  he  should  be  sent  out  of  the  church  altogether,  a  detail  which 
was  not  regarded. 


DTOSCORUS  ACCUSED  225 

not  belong  to  him  and  he  dared  to  arrange  ^  a  Synod 
without  permission  from  the  Apostolic  See,  which  has 
never  been  done,  and  is  not  competenty  i.e.  lawful  to  he 
done'  Paschasinus  chimed  in,  saying  that  the  directions 
of  the  bishop  '  who  occupies  the  Apostolic  throne,'  as  well 
as  the  canons  of  the  Church  and  the  traditions  of  the 
Fathers,  must  be  obeyed.  The  Commissioners  still  urged 
that '  it  is  fitting  that  you  should  show  in  particular  what 
is  his  fault.'  On  their  refusal  to  act  as  accusers,  the  Com- 
missioners turned  to  Dioscorus  and  said  that  he  could  not 
hold  the  position  of  judge  and  accused  at  the  same  time, 
and  ordered  him  in  effect  to  take  the  place  of  one  under 
accusation.^  He  had  to  move  out  of  his  seat  and  remain 
in  the  middle,  whereupon  the  legates  resumed  their  seats 
in  the  place  of  honour.  The  decision  of  the  Bishop  of 
Rome  given  as  '  the  head  of  all  the  Churches  '  was  thus 
obeyed,  and  Eusebius  of  Dorylgeum  now  advanced  to  the 
middle  and  entered  upon  the  office  of  accuser,  which  the 
legates  had  refused  to  fill. 

Dioscorus  maintained  that  Flavian  had  been  rightly 
condemned  by  the  Council  which  the  Emperor  had  con- 
vened at  Ephesus.  Accordingly  the  Acts  of  the  '  Robber- 
Synod  '  were  read.  In  these  the  name  of  Theodoret  oc- 
curred and  he  was  at  once  sent  for,  on  the  ground  that 
he  had  been  restored  to  his  episcopate  by  Leo  and  com- 
manded to  be  present  by  the  Emperor.  A  scene  of  wild 
confusion  ensued.  The  Egyptian  bishops,  a  disorderly 
set  of  untrained  minds,  attached  to  their  '  national 
Church  '  under  Dioscorus,  and  the  Illyrian  and  Pales- 
tinian Bishops,  saw  in  Theodoret  only  the  enemy  of  St. 

*  iToir\(Tai.     It  was  the  arrangement  of  the  Synod,  by  assuming  the 
office  of  president,  which  was  objected  to  Dioscorus.     So  Hefele. 
2  Mansi,  vi.  G15.    See  note  at  the  end  of  this  chapter. 


226  COUNCIL  OF  CHALCEDON 

Cyril.  They  shouted  and  protested  and  maintained 
that  to  admit  Theodoret  into  the  assembly  was  to 
cast  out  Cyril,  whom  Theodoret  had  once  opposed.^ 
The  statement  which  the  Commissioners  and  Senate 
made  as  to  Theodoret's  reinstatement  and  as  to  the 
Imperial  command,  availed  nothing  for  awhile  with 
these  Egyptian  partisans.  They  were  furious  at  the 
idea  of  one  who  had  anathematised  their  former 
patriarch  appearing  in  the  Council  as  bishop.  But  the 
Orientals  {i.e.  the  bishops  of  the  Antiochene  diocese  to 
which  Theodoret  belonged)  and  the  bishops  of  Asia, 
Pontus  and  Thrace  cried  out  that,  on  the  contrary,  Dios- 
corus  should  be  turned  out  of  the  edifice  as  a  murderer. 
They  also  affirmed  that  they  had  signed  Theodoret's 
condemnation  at  the  Eobber-Council  under  pressure 
of  violence.  The  Imperial  Commissioners  hereupon  in- 
sisted that  Theodoret  had  entered — and  was  qualified 
to  enter — the  assembly  as  an  accuser,  and  the  bishops 
must  simply  allow  the  business  which  they  had  begun 
to  proceed.  They  guaranteed  that  '  no  prejudice  should 
arise  to  anyone'  through  the  presence  of  Theodoret, 
but  that  the  opportunity  of  arguing  their  case  against 
him  was  reserved,  if  they  wished  to  enter  upon  any 
mutual  discussion,  and  they  insisted  that  the  Egyptians 
should  bear  in  mind  that  Theodoret's  exarch,  Maximus, 
had,  though  informally,  certified  to  his  orthodoxy. 

Accordingly  Theodoret  took  his  seat  in  the  Council, 

'  It  must  be  remembeied  that  the  Egyptian,  Illyrian  and  Palestinian 
bishops— a  trouble  in  the  Council  afterwards— were  a  small  minority. 
The  Egyptians  were  not  more  than  twelve  or  thirteen,  the  Illyrians  were 
only  thirty-two,  and  the  Palestinians  sixteen.  The  great  mass  of  the 
Council  was  against  them.  Juvenal,  after  his  acceptance  of  the 
definition  at  Chalcedon,  had  grievous  trouble  with  his  subjects  in 
Palestine, 


DIOSCORUS   ACCUSED  227 

but  in  the  middle,  as  being  an  accuser.  But  this  was 
not  likely  to  put  the  Egyptian  bishops  at  their  ease,  for 
Theodoret  was  there  to  exercise  an  ofBce  which  could 
only,  according  to  the  Sixth  Canon  (as  it  is  often  called) 
of  the  Council  of  Constantinople  in  382,  be  fulfilled  by 
one  who  was  not  excommunicated  nor  deposed,  who,  in 
fact,  had  one  of  the  distinctive  rights  of  a  bishop. 
When,  therefore,  he  took  his  seat,  the  Orientals  ex- 
claimed, '  Worthy,  worthy ' — a  term  applied  in  ancient 
times  to  a  newly  consecrated  bishop,  by  acclamation. 
They  thus  acknowledged  his  partial  restoration.^  But 
the  Egyptians  objected  :  '  Do  not  call  him  a  bishop  ;  he  is 
not  a  bishop.'  To  which  the  Orientals  returned  fire  with 
their  clamorous  assertion  of  satisfaction  at  the  decision : 
*  The  orthodox  in  the  Synod,'  i.e.  it  is  right  to  admit 
such  as  Theodoret  to  the  Synod.  '  Cast  out  the  seditious,' 
i.e.  the  Egyptian  bishops  themselves.  The  Egyptians, 
in  no  way  behindhand  in  clamour,  shouted  out :  '  Cast 
out  him  who  has  insulted  Christ.  Long  live  the  Em- 
press ! '  i.e.  Pulcheria,  Cyril's  friend.  '  Long  live  the 
orthodox  Emperor  !  This  fellow  anathematised  Cyril ' — 
which  was  only  too  true.  And  again :  '  We  cast  out 
Cyril  if  we  accept  Theodoret.'  The  Commissioners,  how- 
ever, simply  stopped  the  tumult  with  the  remark  that 
all  this  excited  shouting  befitted  a  mob  more  than 
bishops,  and,  leaving  Theodoret  where  he  was,  ordered 
the  reading  of  the  minutes  of  the  Ephesine  meeting  (the 
Latrocinium)  to  continue. 

In  promising  the  Egyptians  that  they  should  be 
allowed  to  have  their  say  with  Theodoret  afterwards  if 
they  wished  to  enter  upon  a  struggle,^  the  Commissioners 

*  Cf.  Chr.  Lupus,  Synod.  Decret.  i.  896  (Brussels,  1673). 
^  <f>v\aTTOfj.(vov  ....  iravrhs  KSyov  Kol   vfuv  Koi   iKeivtp  ft  riva  ii/ioi- 

q2 


228  COUNCIL   OF   CHALCEDON 

were  only  doing  what  Leo  himself  would  have  been  the 
first  to  allow.  For  the  case  of  the  bishops  was,  according 
to  Pulcheria,  to  be  decided  (1)  at  the  Council  (2)  by  his 
authority/  and  Leo  himself  in  his  letter  to  the  Synod 
had  expressly  said  that  with  regard  to  bishops  driven 
from  their  sees  by  the  Latrocinium,  they  were  to  apply 
the  medicine  of  justice  to  their  wounds  so  that  no  one  of 
them  should  be  so  deprived  of  what  belonged  to  him  as 
that  one  should  have  what  belonged  to  another.^  As 
a  matter  of  fact  the  Synod  did  not  allow  the  subject  to 
be  mooted  at  all,  until  the  whole  question  of  the  faith 
had  been  transacted  and  the  definition  drawn  up,  and 
the  Emperor  had  left  the  scene.  And  Theodoret  was 
included  in  the  list  of  bishops  who  sat  in  Council  during 
the  second  Act ;  ^  was  allowed  to  sign  himself  '  Bishop  of 
Cyrus '  at  the  end  of  the  fourth  Act ;  and  in  the  sixth 
also  he  signed,  saying  '  I,  Theodoret,  Bishop  of  Cyrus, 
defining  have  subscribed,'  which  is  conclusive  as  to  the 
interim  acceptance  of  his  episcopal  position  by  the 
Council,  since  he  thus  exercised  the  highest  prerogative 
of  a  bishop,  giving  his  judgment  as  to  the  doctrine  of 
the  Catholic  Church.  And  all  this  was  done  on  the 
ground  that  he  had  been  restored  to  his  episcopate  by 
Leo.  The  attestation  of  Maximus  to  his  orthodoxy  was 
not  a  judicial  act,  as  was  that  of  Leo.  He  acquiesced 
in  Leo's  decision  from  personal  knowledge  of  Theodoret. 
He  said  he  had  heard  him  preach.  And  Leo's  decision 
must  be  taken  together  with  his  request  that  the  cases  of 
bishops  should  be,  all  of  them,  subject  to  conciliar  in- 
vestigation. 

fiaius  iyyvfivd^eiv  fiovX-ndel-nre.  Dr.  Bright  seems  to  follow  a  corrupt 
reading  of  the  Latin.     Cf.  Baluze's  note  in  Mansi,  vi,  591. 

'   aov  avOfurovvros  dpicrwaiy  {Leoil.  Ep.  77). 

•^  Ep.  93,  c.  iii.  ^  Mansi,  vi.  943. 


DIOSCORUS   ACCUSED  229 

Thus  far,  then,  Dioscorus  had  been  obliged  to  pass 
from  the  position  of  judge  to  that  of  accused,  by  order  of 
Leo  as  '  the  head  of  all  the  Churches,'  and  Theodoret 
had  been,  at  least  temporarily,  admitted  to  the  rank  of 
bishop  in  deference  to  Leo's  decision.^  He  took  the  same 
place  in  the  middle  as  did  the  orthodox  champion,  Eu- 
sebius  of  Dorylseum  (Mansi,  vi.  645). 

§  2.  The  Trial.     The  'Acts  '  of  the  Bobber-Synod 

Point  by  point  was  now  proved  against  Dioscorus,  as 
the  *  Acts '  of  the  '  Robber- Synod '  at  Ephesus  (449)  were 
read  in  the  church  of  Chalcedon. 

1.  In  the  account  of  those  who  sat  in  that  Synod  the 
name  of  Dioscorus  came  first,  before  that  of  the  Papal 
legate.  This  was  the  signal  for  cries  of  indignation  from 
the  bishops  :  '  The  name  of  Leo  was  cast  out ;  '  and  as 
the  Secretary  proceeded  to  read  out  the  names  of  Juvenal 
of  Jerusalem,  Maximus  of  Antioch,  and  Flavian  of 
Constantinople,  the  '  Orientals  '  {i.e.  the  Antiochenes) 
and  other  bishops  exclaimed  at  Flavian  being  put  in  the 
fifth  place.^     It  might  seem  at  first  sight  remarkable 

^  What  happened  in  the  Eighth  Session  will  be  dealt  with  in  its 
proper  place  (c/.  infra,  p.  297).  Dr.  Bright  speaks  of  Theodoret  as  being 
'  kept  waiting  through  several  sessions  as  one  who  was  still  open  to 
accusation'  [Waymarks,  p.  231),  and  '  as  an  accuser  who  might  himself 
be  accused'  {ihid.  227),  and  again  as  'capable  also  of  being  accused' 
(Roman  See,  p.  194).  There  is  a  false  rendering  of  the  Greek  in 
Mansi's  Latin  text,  which  uses  the  word  '  accusation.'  But  Mansi  gives 
Baluze's  note,  which  says  that  none  of  the  old  copies  have  this  reading. 
At  the  same  time,  even  if  this  expression  were  accurate,  the  action  of 
the  Council  so  far  would  afford  an  emphatic  testimony  to  the  supremacy 
of  the  Apostolic  See,  since  on  no  other  supposition  but  that  of 
supremacy  could  the  Papal  judgment  of  a  Greek  bishop,  in  the  Patri- 
archate of  Antioch,  be  accepted  as  conclusive  even  so  far  as  it  was  in 
this  case. 

2  Mansi,  vi.  608. 


230  COUNCIL   OF   CHALCEDON 

that  the  Antiochenes  should  exclaim  against  an  arrange- 
ment by  which  their  own  mother  see  was  placed  above 
that  of  Constantinople.  And  it  is  still  more  cm'ious 
that  the  Papal  legate  should  have  come  forward  and 
called  attention  to  the  fact  that  they — i.e.  himself  and 
the  present  Council — had  put  the  present  Bishop  of  Con- 
stantinople first  after  Eome.  And  Diogenes  of  Cyzicus 
alluded  to  the  canons,  meaning  of  course  the  third  Canon 
of  Constantinople,  which  Eome  had  not  received.  But  it 
was  not  really  on  the  ground  of  that  canon  that 
Paschasinus,  the  legate,  had  proceeded,  but  out  of 
respect  to  the  compact  whereby  Proclus  of  Constanti- 
nople and  Domnus  of  Antioch  had  agreed  that  the 
status  of  Constantinople  as  decreed  by  that  canon  should 
be  accepted  by  them.  Paschasinus's  weakness  in  this 
matter  was  afterwards  repudiated  by  Leo,  and  Maximus 
was  blamed  for  not  taking  his  proper  place. 

That,  however,  was  a  minor  matter  compared  with 
ousting  the  representatives  of  Eome  from  their  proper 
place  in  favour  of  Alexandria.  This  was  the  first 
criminal  offence  committed  by  Dioscorus. 

2.  Next  in  order,  as  the  recitation  of  the  Acts  of  the 
Ephesine  catastrophe  continued,  came  the  question  of 
Leo's  letter  to  Flavian — his  Tome.^  '  It  was  not  read,' 
was  the  accusation.  Dioscorus  endeavoured  to  shift  the 
blame  on  to  the  shoulders  of  Juvenal  and  Thalassius, 
but  in  vain.     This  was  the  second  serious  offence. 

3.  They  now  in  the  natural  course  of  the  reading 
entered  upon  the  question  of  Eutyches's  teaching  which 
had  been  sanctioned  by  Dioscorus.  The  violent  behaviour 
of  Dioscorus  soon  came  to  the  front,  for  the  accuracy  of 
the  account  as  entered  in  the  minutes  of  the  Eobber- 

'  Mansi,  vi.  616. 


DIOSCORUS  TRIED  231 

Synod  was  questioned  by  some  of  the  bishops,  and  this 
elicited  the  declaration  from  several  bishops  that  they 
had  been  unable  to  use  their  notaries  at  the  Latrocinium, 
owing  to  the  party  of  Dioscorus  having  overturned  their 
desks  and  destroyed  their  tablets  and  almost  broken 
their  fingers.  But  when  they  came  to  the  place  where 
Dioscorus  was  said  to  have  given  out  that  he  was  acting 
in  harmony  with  the  decrees  of  the  fathers  at  Nicgea  and 
Ephesus,  which  he  said  he  had  carefully  searched, 
Eusebius  of  Dorylaeum  interrupted  with  the  exclamation, 
'  I  search,  said  he  [i.e.  Dioscorus]  ;  and  I  too  [Eusebius] 
have  done  that.'  To  which  Dioscorus  now  replied,  '  I 
said,  "  I  search,"  not  "  innovate,"  '  i.e.  '  I  do  not  introduce 
doctrinal  novelties  '  (as  he  had  charged  Eusebius  with 
doing).  '  For  our  Saviour  commanded  us  saying, 
*'  Search  the  Scriptures."  But  he  who  searches  does  not 
innovate,'  i.e.  he  is  kept  from  doctrinal  novelties.  To 
which  Eusebius  replied  in  effect,  '  That  depends  on  the 
spirit  in  which  you  search.'  He  suggested  that  Dios- 
corus would  have  found  the  truth  if  he  had  searched  in  a 
spirit  of  prayer,^  '  The  Saviour  said  "  Seek  and  you 
shall  find."  '  The  reading  was  then  resumed,  and  when 
they  came  to  the  place  where  Dioscorus  was  reported  as 
saying  that  the  decisions  of  the  fathers  of  Nica3a  and 
Ephesus  could  not  be  rehandled,  for  this  would  be  to 

'  Mansi,  vi.  625.  It  is  worth  noticing  that  all  these  Greeks  under- 
stood the  word  *  Search  '  in  John  v.  39,  as  the  imperative.  Dr.  Bright 
{Roman  See,  p.  283)  has  curiously  missed  the  point  of  this  little  incident. 
He  translates  Dioscorus's  words  thus  :  '  Our  Saviour  bade  us  examine  the 
Scriptures  ;  that  is  not  innovating.'  The  words  are  o  Se  ipswwv  rrjv 
ypa(pr]u,  ov  Kaivoroixu.  Nobody  suggested  that  reading  the  Scriptures 
was  an  innovation.  Dioscorus  was  maintaining  that  there  must  be  no 
introduction  of  doctrinal  novelties,  and  that  he  was  preserved  from  this 
because  he  searched  the  canons  and  the  Scriptures. 


232  COUNCIL  OF   CHALCEDON 

rehandle  what  the  Holy  Ghost  had  decreed,  and  the  Synod 
(the  Eobber- Synod)  was  reported  as  having  thereupon 
exclaimed  that  Dioscorus  was  '  the  guardian  of  the 
faith,'  Bishop  Theodore  burst  in  with  an  indignant 
denial  that  they  ever  said  that,  to  which  Dioscorus 
now  rejoined  (at  Chalcedon)  that  Theodore  might  as 
well  say  he  was  not  present.*  So  far  as  presenting  a 
bold  front  was  concerned,  Dioscorus  was  equal  to  the 
situation. 

But  when  they  came  to  the  account  of  Eutyches's 
profession  of  faith  handed  in  at  the  Latrocinium,  and  to 
his  quotation  of  the  decree  of  the  CEcumenical  Council  of 
Ephesus  (431)  against  drawing  up  or  presenting  any 
other  Creed  than  that  of  Nicaea  to  persons  suspected  of 
heresy  or  to  converts  of  Christianity,  Eusebius  of  Dory- 
laeum  bluntly  declared  that  Eutyches  lied,  for  that  there 
was  no  definition  or  canon  that  said  exactly  what 
Eutyches  did.^  Dioscorus  thereupon  interposed,  saying 
that  four  codices  contained  this  '  definition.'  He  drew  a 
distinction  between  a  '  definition  '  and  a  '  canon.'  But 
the  Bishop  of  Cyzicus  explained  on  behalf  of  Eusebius 
that  the  decree  of  Ephesus  did  not  forbid  what  Eutyches 
had  quoted  it  as  forbidding  :  for  Eutyches,  following  in 
the  footsteps  of  the  Apollinarians,  had  omitted  the 
addition  made  at  Constantinople  in  381,  viz.  the  words 
'  of  the  Holy  Ghost '  and  '  the  Virgin  Mary.'  Eu- 
tyches therefore  (said  this  bishop)  acted  '  deceitfully ' 
in  quoting  the  Ephesine  decree  for  his  own  purpose. 
But  the  Egyptians  at  once  shouted  out  that  '  no  one 
accepts  an  addition  ' — in  a  word,  they  did  not  accept  the 
Niceno-Constantinopolitan  form  of  the  Creed — and  they 
added  :  '  Let  the  things  decreed  at  Nicaea  prevail ;  the 

'  Mansi,  vi.  628.  -  Ibid.  632.     ovk  tan  Kauwv  toGto  Biayopevwv. 


DIOSCORUS  TEIED  233 

Emperor  ordered  this.'  And  it  was  true  that  the  Em- 
peror Theodosius  had  ordered  that  the  Nicene  Creed 
(and  he  seems  to  have  understood  it  in  its  shortened 
form)  should  be  the  norm  and  test  of  the  bishops'  faith. 
But  the  Emperor  was  under  the  heretical  influences  of 
Eutyches  and  Chrysaphius.  AndEutyches  (as  has  been 
already  remarked)  had  purposely  adopted  the  programme 
of  accepting  as  Nicene  only  that  which  was  actually  ex- 
pressed at  Nicaea.  The  orthodox  bishops  accordingly 
now  exclaimed,  in  answer  to  the  Egyptians'  plea  that  no 
addition  was  to  be  allowed  but  that  they  were  to  adhere  to 
the  decrees  of  the  fathers  at  Nicaea,  '  Eutyches  said  that ' 
— which  was  true.  The  Egyptians,  however,  clung  to 
their  ground,  and  the  reading  was  resumed. 

Eutyches's  profession  of  faith  being  continued,  Eu- 
sebius  interrupted  again  at  the  assertion  that  '  the 
flesh  of  our  Lord  and  God,  Jesus  Christ,  descended  from 
heaven.'  This  was  a  point  in  Eutyches's  teaching  which, 
as  it  had  been  defended  by  Dioscorus,  showed  that  the 
latter  was  really  unorthodox.  The  indictment  against 
him  was  growing  more  and  more  unanswerable.  This 
was  a  third  serious  count  against  him. 

4.  After  a  passage  of  arms  in  which  Dioscorus  elicited 
that  the  Bishop  of  Isauria  had  shown  the  white  feather, 
the  Antiochenes  and  their  party  owned  their  cowardice 
in  not  having  withstood  Dioscorus  when  he  induced  them 
to  sign  the  deposition  of  Flavian  by  putting  their  names 
to  a  blank  paper.  Even  Thalassius,  who  had  so  supported 
Dioscorus,  joined  in  with  his  peccam? 

The  reading  being  resumed,  Flavian's  request  at  the 
Latrocinium  that  Eusebius  of  Dorylaeum  might  be  ad- 
mitted as  having  been  the  accuser  of  Eutyches  at  the 

'  Mansi,  vi.  633.     Cf.  Rusticus's  annotation.  =  jj^^  540. 


234  COUNCIL  OF  CHALCEDON 

Constantinopolitan  Synod  of  448,  the  Chalcedonian 
magistrates,  recognising  the  monstrous  injustice  of 
Eusebius's  exclusion,  asked  Dioscorus  why  Eusebius  had 
not  been  allowed  to  enter.  Dioscorus  again  threw  the 
blame  on  others  :  this  time  on  the  Emperor,  whose  repre- 
sentative, the  Count  Elpidius,  had  ordered  Eusebius  to 
remain  outside.  Juvenal  and  Thalassius  disavowed  any 
overt  action  in  the  matter.  The  magistrates  naturally 
refused  to  accept  such  excuses,  saying :  *  In  case  of  a 
matter  of  faith  being  tried,  this  is  no  defence.'  It  was  an 
offence  against  natural  justice.  Dioscorus,  however, 
endeavoured  to  blunt  the  edge  of  their  condemnation  by 
turning  to  another  subject  and  suggesting  that  it  was  as 
bad  for  them  to  have  allowed  Theodoret  to  enter  and  sit 
as  bishop  as  it  was  for  him  to  have  refused  entrance 
at  the  Latrocinium  to  Eusebius.  To  which  the  Com- 
missioners replied  :  '  Bishop  Eusebius  and  Bishop  Theo- 
doret sit  in  the  rank  of  accusers,  as  also  you  sit  in 
the  place  of  those  under  accusation  ' :  ^  i.e.  Dioscorus  was 
himself  admitted  as  bishop,  so  that  he  could  not  complain. 
Thus  Eusebius  had  accused  Dioscorus  of  violating 
canonical  order,^  and  Dioscorus's  only  defence  was  that 
the  Imperial  Commissioner  took  the  lead,  and  that  the 
Chalcedonian  fathers  had  themselves  admitted  Theo- 
doret to  the  rank  of  bishop — a  plea  which  was  not  recog- 
nised as  sufficient. 

5.  When  they  now  came  to  the  place  where  Cyril's 
pacificatory  letter  to  John  of  Antioch  had  been  read  in 
the  Council  of  Constantinople  under  ^  Flavian,  the  Illyrian 

'  Mansi,  vi.  645, 

2  aKoKovBla — olkoKovQms,  used  absolutely,  always  =  canonically.  Cf. 
supra,  p.  85,  and  Christianus  Lupus,  ScJwlia  in  Canones  et  Decreta, 
i.  903  (Brussels,  1673). 

^  The   minutes   of  the   Council   under   Flavian   were   read  at  the 


DIOSCORUS   TRIED  236 

bishops,  always  on  the  watch  for  the  name  of  Cyril  to 
throw  it  against  the  adversaries  of  Eutyches,  whom  they 
wrongly  imagined  to  be  anti-Cyrilline,  exclaimed  :  '  So  we 
believe,  as  Cyril.'  Theodoret  here,  by  way  of  justifying 
the  position  provisionally  conceded  to  him,  exclaimed  : 
'  Anathema  to  him  who  says  there  are  two  Sons.  For 
we  adore  one  Son,  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  the  Only- 
begotten.'  This  was  his  act  of  reparation  for  past 
antagonism  to  Cyril.^ 

The  reading  of  Cyril's  letter  also  gave  occasion  to 
Dioscorus,  a  propos  of  an  explanation  of  that  letter  by 
one  of  he  bishops,  to  disavow  any  adhesion  to  the 
supposed  teaching  of  Eutyches  on  the  '  confusion  of 
natures  '  in  our  Divine  Lord.  His  emphatic  words  were : 
*  We  neither  speak  of  confusion,  nor  division,  nor  conver- 
sion '—of  one  into  the  other.  '  Anathema  to  anyone  who 
speaks  of  confusion,  or  conversion,  or  commixture.'  "^ 

At  length  they  came  to  Flavian's  declaration  of  his 
own  faith — his  ecthesis,  as  it  is  uniformly  called.^  Here- 
upon the  Imperial  Commissioners  asked  the  bishops 
of  the  Synod  for  their  judgment  on  Flavian's  exposition 
of  the  faith.  The  Papal  legate  at  once  rose  and  said  that 
Flavian  had  expounded  the  faith '  ^  rightly,  for  it  agrees 
with  the  letter  {i.e.  the  Tome)  of  Leo.  Anatolius  simply 
said  that  '  Blessed '  Flavian  had  '  expounded  the  faith ' 

Latrocinium,  and  as  the  '  Acts '  of  the  Latrocinium  were  being  read  at 
Chalcedon,  those  minutes  necessarily  formed  part  of  this  reading. 

1  Mansi,  vi.  673. 

2  Ibid.  676. 

3  Ibid.  680,  681,  683.  All  through  this  scene,  St.  Flavian  is  spoken 
of  as  having  '  expounded '  (e|e0eTo)  and  promulgated  an  '  exposition ' 
{^Kdecriv)  of  the  faith.  From  which  it  will  be  seen  that  it  is  idle  to 
confine  the  words  eK0e?i/oi  and  eK6e<ns  to  the  Creed. 

*  In  each  case  the  Greek  is  -Klanu  i^edero. 


236  COUNCIL   OF  CHALCEDON 

of  our  fathers  in  an  orthodox  way.  Lucentius,  the 
Papal  legate,  said  that  it  agrees  with  the  Apostolic  See 
and  the  traditions  of  the  fathers  ;  Maximus  of  Antioch, 
that  Flavian  '  expounded  the  faith  '  in  orthodox  wise  and 
agreeably  with  Leo  ;  Thalassius,  that  he  had  spoken  in 
accord  with  Cyril,  which  in  some  sense  was  the  most 
emphatic  thing  to  say,  since  Flavian  had  been  condemned 
at  the  Latrocinium  as  though  disagreeing  with  Cyril. 
After  Eusebius  of  Ancyra  and  Eustathius  of  Berytum 
had  spoken  to  the  same  effect,  Dioscorus  put  in  a  word. 
He  asked  that  more  of  what  Flavian  had  expounded 
should  be  read  and  it  would  be  found  that  he  contradicted 
himself,  for  he  said  that  there  wer^  '  two  natures  after 
the  union,'  which  Dioscorus  implied  Cyril  had  not 
taught. 

And  now  Dioscorus's  right  hand  man,  Juvenal  of 
Jerusalem,  next  to  whom  he  had  sat  when  at  the  opening 
of  the  session  he  took  his  place  in  the  circle  of  judges, 
came  prominently  forward.  He  said  that  if  they  read 
Flavian's  words  to  the  end,  they  would  find  that  they 
were  in  perfect  accord  with  Cyril. ^  He  thus  contradicted 
Dioscorus  point  blank,  and  hereupon  he  rose  from  his 
seat  and  passed  over  to  the  other  side.  Bishop  after 
bishop  now  did  the  same.  This  brought  Dioscorus  to 
his  feet  again,  and  led  to  an  important  utterance  of  his 
belief.  In  spite  of  the  defection  of  bishop  after  bishop, 
he  stood  his  ground,  and  told  the  assembly  that  '  Flavian 
was  manifestly  condemned  because  he  spoke  of  two 
natures  after  the  tmio7i,  i.e.  after  the  Incarnation.  So 
that  in  spite  of  his  having  disavowed  the  doctrine  of 

•  Mansi,  vi.  681.  Harnack  calls  this  change  of  opinion  disgraceful 
{Hist,  of  Dogma,  iv.  218,  Tr.).  The  disgrace  was  in  the  original  defer- 
ence to  Dioscorus. 


DIOSCORUS  TRIED  237 

any  confusion  or  conversion  of  the  natures  in  our  Lord, 
he  maintained  the  proposition  which  underlay  that  false 
doctrme.  He  declared  now  that  his  teaching  was  to  be 
found  in  the  Fathers,  and  that  he  had  carefully  compiled 
the  evidence  from  their  writings.' 

As  they  proceeded  with  the  reading  at  Dioscorus's 
request,  a  declaration  by  one  of  the  bishops  at  the 
Council  of  448  elicited  a  fresh  heretical  declaration  from 
Dioscorus.  The  bishop  had  spoken  of  Cyril's  ecthesis, 
or  exposition,^  as  countenancing  the  expression  '  of  two 
natures  '  in  reference  to  the  Incarnation  ;  whereupon 
Dioscorus  said,  '  "  Of  two  natures  "  I  accept ;  "  two 
natures,"  I  do  not ' — i.e.  he  did  not  agree  that  there 
are  two  natures  in  our  Incarnate  Lord.  He  added  that 
he  was  obliged  to  speak  without  shame,  for  his  soul  was 
concerned.  He  thus  deliberately  adopted  the  expression 
*  of  two  natures '  (as  opposed  to  '  in  two  natures ' )  in 
vogue  among  the  Apollinarians,  and  in  after  time 
perpetually  repeated  by  the  Eutychians.  Had  he  stopped 
with  the  mere  assertion  that  Christ  was  '  of  two  natures,' 
he  would  not  have  enunciated  a  heresy,  but  only  (as 

'  The  expression,  as  has  been  said  in  a  previous  chapter,  on  which 
they  built  was  that  there  is  '  one  nature  of  the  Word  incarnate  ' — i.e.  one 
nature  which  was  incarnate.  Dioscorus  and  the  Egyptians  generally 
professed  to  ground  their  belief,  not  only  on  Cyril,  but  on  a  passage  in 
Athanasius  ;  but  there  is  no  such  passage.  Leontius  of  Byzantium  says 
that  Theodore  of  Mopsuestia  quoted  St.  Athanasius,  but  that  he 
(Leontius)  could  not  find  the  passage  in  Athanasius's  writings  (Lib.  de 
Sectis,  cap.  8).  St.  John  Damascene  speaks  of  the  phrase  just  quoted 
as,  not  Athanasian,  but  as  first  used  by  Cyril,  and  he  explains  that 
'  nature  '  {i.e.  (pvais)  was  sometimes  used  for  '  person  '  {De  Orthod.  Fide, 
lib.  iii.  c.  11). 

^  The  bishop  speaks  of  Cyril  thus  :  rb  Z6yixa  iu  ttj  eiriaTo\f}  e^edfro 
(Mansi,  vi.  689).  I  mention  this  as  some  writers  are  for  confining  the 
words  iKdf7i'at  and  ^Kdeats  to  the  Creed. 


238  COUNCIL  OF   CHALCEDON 

Leontius  expresses  it)  an  imperfect  description  of  the 
Incarnation.  But  the  Council  of  Chalcedon  refused  to 
canonise  this  phrase,  however  innocent  it  might  be  on 
the  lips  of  some.  It  was  in  reality,  as  used  at  that  time, 
opposed  to  the  orthodox  doctrine  that  Christ  exists  '  in 
two  natures.'  Presently  Dioscorus  took  occasion  from 
another  passage  in  the  minutes  of  the  Constantinopolitan 
Council  under  Flavian  (which  condemned  Eutyches)  to 
say  distinctly,  '  I  object  to  this,  for  after  the  union  there 
are  not  two  natures.'  ^  And  further  on,  when  Eutyches 
was  reported  to  have  said  at  Constantinople  in  448,  *  I 
confess  that  our  Lord  was  of  two  natures  before  the 
union  ;  but  after  the  union '  {i.e.  the  Incarnation)  *  I 
confess  one  nature,'  Dioscorus  was  found  to  have  said 
at  Ephesus  (in  449)  '  We  all  agree  to  this  ' — an  account 
of  matters  which  the  Antiochenes  now  repudiated  at 
Chalcedon.2 

And  so  they  read  on  hour  by  hour,  with  intermingled 
exclamations  from  the  Antiochenes  on  the  one  side,  and 
the  Egyptians  on  the  other,  the  great  bulk  of  the  bishops 
simply  sitting  and  watching  the  case,  which  was  being 
conducted  with  every  respect  to  normal  judicial  procedure, 
until  at  length  they  had  to  light  the  great  waxen  candles,^ 
and  the  sentence  passed  by  Dioscorus  on  Flavian  at  the 
Latrocinium  was  read  out  to  these  600  fathers  at 
Chalcedon  in  the  half-darkened  church  at  the  same 
hour  at  which,  two  years  before,  that  sentence  had  been 
passed.  At  the  conclusion,  which  ended  with  the  one 
word  in  Latin  from  the  Papal  legate,  Gontradicitur^  the 
Orientals  and  their  party  exclaimed:  'Anathema  to 
Dioscorus.  At  this  very  hour  he  passed  sentence  :  at 
this   same   hour   let  him   be  condemned.     Holy  Lord, 

'  Mansi,  vi.  692.  -  Ihid.  114..  ^  Krjpiwv,  901. 


DIOSCORUS  TRIED  239 

avenge  Thyself.  Catholic  Emperor,  avenge  Flavian. 
Long  live  Leo  !     Long  live  the  Patriarch  ! '  * 

The  session  ended  with  a  proposal  on  the  part  of  the 
Imperial  Commissioners  that  Dioscorus,  Juvenal,  Thal- 
assius,  Eusebius  (of  Ancyra),  Eustathius  and  Basil  (of 
Seleucia)  should  all  be  deposed,  and,  after  some  excited 
rather  than  edifying  exclamations  from  the  Orientals 
(Antiochenes),  in  favour  of  this  wholesale  deposition  of 
the  presidents,  the  Commissioners  ordered  that  each 
bishop  should  prepare  a  profession  of  faith,  and  the 
Council  was  adjourned  till  the  following  day. 

So  far  Dioscorus  had  been  convicted  of  having  taken 
upon  himself  to  degrade  the  Papal  legates  from  the 
Presidency  of  the  Synod  at  Ephesus  in  449  ;  of  having  not 
read  the  letter  of  Leo  to  the  Synod,  including  the  Tome  ; 
of  having  refused  to  allow  Eusebius  of  Dorylaeum  a 
hearing  before  acquitting  Eutyches  ;  of  having  sanctioned 
Eutyches's  heretical  teaching  as  to  the  Flesh  of  Christ 
having  '  descended  from  Heaven,'  and  as  to  only  one 
nature  remaining  in  Him  after  the  Incarnation ;  of 
having  committed  great  violence  at  the  Eobber- Synod  ; 
and  of  having  condemned  Flavian  for  heresy,  when  his 
(Flavian's)  teaching  agreed  with  that  of  Leo  and  all  the 
Fathers. 

'  Mansi,  vi.  911.  This  is  the  first  instance  of  the  word  Patriarch  being 
used  in  a  General  Council.  It  had  been  used  of  Leo  by  Valentinian,  but 
not  in  Synod.  It  was  a  word  in  use  among  the  Jews  for  the  supreme 
judge  in  religious  matters  (cf.  Codex  TJieodos.  Lib.  II.  tit.  i.  c.  10).  It  was 
transferred  first  to  Leo,  then  to  the  Bishop  of  Alexandria  and  others, 
and  eventually  to  metropolitans  and  primates  in  general — its  use  fluc- 
tuating somewhat,  and  its  application  in  legal  documents  to  the  Jews 
gradually  dying  out.  Justinian  never  applies  it  to  Jews.  Cf.  Lupus, 
Canones  et  Decreta,  i.  910. 


240  COUNCIL   OF  CHALCEDON 


§  3.  His  Contumacy.     The  Papal  Legates  deliver 
Sentence 

The  position  of  Dioscorus  was  at  this  moment  that  of 
a  bishop— but  of  a  bishop  who  was  now  under  a  sentence 
of  condemnation  ready  at  any  moment  to  descend  upon 
him  and  deprive  him  of  the  rank  of  bishop  and  of  a 
place  within  the  Christian  fold.  St.  Leo  had  declared 
him  worthy  of  deposition,  but  had  expressly  committed 
the  act  of  deposition,  if  he  proved  obdurate,  to  the 
Council  of  bishops  under  his  legates ;  the  Imperial 
Commissioners,  after  a  minute  investigation  of  his 
doings  at  the  Latrocinium,  had  declared  also  that  he 
was  worthy  of  deposition  ;  but  the  actual  ecclesiastical 
sentence  had  not  yet  been  pronounced.  This  was  left 
to  the  bishops  assembled,  as  a  matter  belonging  strictly 
to  the  functions  of  the  episcopate  by  themselves  alone, 
without  the  magistrates. 

'  What,'  it  has  been  asked,  '  is  the  province  of  the 
Episcopate  in  the  monarchy  of  the  Church  ?  It  is  cer- 
tain, not  only  that  the  episcopal  body  can  never  be 
superseded  in  the  Church  by  the  Pope,  but  also  that  it 
can  never  be  deprived  of  its  inherent  jurisdiction  in 
the  general  government  of  the  Church,  although  there 
is  no  difficulty  as  to  restrictions  and  limitations  being 
placed  by  the  Pope  upon  the  exercise  of  their 
jurisdiction,  should  necessity  require  such  a  course. 
.  .  .  The  power  of  the  aristocratic  episcopal  body  was 
not  intended  by  Christ  to  control  or  to  reform  the 
government  and  the  teaching  of  the  supreme  ruler  of 
the  Church,  but  to  give  efficacy  to  his  action  on  the 
whole  body,  to  diffuse  to  every  part  the  streams  of 
divine  life,  and  to  draw  tighter  the  bonds  of  unity  which 


DIOSCORUS   CONTUMACIOUS  241 

link  together  the  whole  structure.'  These  are  the 
words  of  a  writer  who  received  the  special  approbation 
of  Pius  IX.  for  his  works  on  the  subject  of  Papal  infal- 
libility. What,  therefore,  we  shall  be  careful  to  notice, 
if  we  wish  to  scrutinise  the  witness  of  history,  is,  not 
whether  the  Pope  appears  as  an  absolute  monarch— for 
no  one  who  accepts  the  "Vatican  decrees  claims  for  him 
such  a  position  as  that— but  whether  he  appears  as 
*  head  of  all  the  Churches,'  as  he  has  been  already  defi- 
nitely called  in  our  Council. 

When  the  bishops  reassembled,^  Dioscorus  did  not 
make  his  appearance.  But  Eusebius  of  Dorylaeum,  who 
had  been  '  deposed  '  by  him,  and  had  now  to  make  good 
his  case  against  him,  demanded  his  presence.  They 
searched  the  precincts  of  the  church,  but  nowhere  could 
he  be  found.  They  accordingly  sent  an  embassy  to 
him,  and,  this  failing,  wrote  to  him,  and  persisted  until 
the  canonical  rule  of  thrice  summoning  a  bishop  under 
accusation  had  been  complied  with.  Dioscorus  first  said 
that  he  was  under  surveillance,  being  in  the  hands  of 
the  Imperial  Guard,  having  (we  presume)  been  jplaced 
under  arrest  after  the  decision  of  the  first  session.  But 
when  the  officer  in  command  gave  him  leave  to  go,  he 
refused  to  move.  He  next  insisted  that  the  Imperial 
Commissioners  and  the  Senate  should  be  present  at  the 
session.  He  then  gave  illness  as  his  reason  for  not 
coming.  Again,  he  insisted  that  not  he  alone  but  the 
others  who  were  prominent  in  the  late  Synod  should 
be  placed  in  the  dock  with  him,  to  which  it  was  replied, 

'  This  was  not,  according  to  the  common  opinion,  the  next — i.e.  the 
second— but  the  third  session.  But  there  is  considerable  authority  for 
supposing  that  it  was.  I  have,  however,  given  the  account  of  it  here, 
without  presuming  to  settle  the  question,  merely  by  way  of  presenting  a 
consecutive  narrative  of  the  treatment  of  Dioscorus. 


242  COUNCIL   OF   CHALCEDON 

in  effect,  that  he  alone  was  accused  by  Eusebius. 
Lastly  he  recurred  to  the  absence  of  the  magistrates  as 
his  ground  of  refusal.  This  was  the  same  as  contempt 
of  court. 

Meanwhile  three  clerics  of  Alexandria  and  a  layman 
were  admitted  to  the  Synod,  to  prefer  their  several  com- 
plaints against  their  patriarch.  Their  petitions  were 
each  one  of  them  addressed  to  '  the  G^ciimcnical  Arch- 
bishop and  Patriarch  of  great  Kome,  Leo,  and  the  holy 
and  (Ecumenical  Synod,'  the  priest  from  Alexandria  con- 
cluding his  petition  with  repeating  '  I,  miserable 
Athanasius,  presbyter  of  the  most  renowned  city  of 
Alexandria,  have  presented  these  petitions  to  the  most 
holy  and  (Ecumenical  Archbishop  and  Patriarch  Leo, 
and  to  the  most  holy  (Ecumenical  Synod  of  most 
holy  bishops  and  fathers.'  The  layman,  Sophronias, 
concluded  in  the  same  way.^  These  documents  con- 
tained accusations  against  Dioscorus,  which  the  peti- 
tioners said  they  were  prepared  to  substantiate,  of  in- 
tolerable tyranny  and  dishonest  peculations  in  his  rule 
at  Alexandria.  The  layman  averred  that  Dioscorus 
had  quashed  an  appeal  to  the  Emperor,  and  said  that 
Egypt  '  was  his  own  rather  than  the  Emperor's 
province.' 

The  Synod  considered  that  these  accusations  were 
sufficiently  serious  to  demand  explanation.  But  Dios- 
corus absolutely  refused  to  put  in  an  appearance. 

*  Dr.  Bright  says  that  this  term  '  (Ecumenical '  was  '  obviously  put  in 
to  please  Leo,'  and  he  compares  it  to  the  use  of  the  term  '  angelical ' 
used  by  the  memorialists  of  the  company  of  Bishops  {Roman  See,  p.  182). 
But  (1)  the  memorialists  had  to  ingratiate  themselves  with  the  Council 
— not  with  Leo ;  and  (2)  they  called  the  Synod  '  (Ecumenical '  in  the 
same  breath ;  and  (3)  to  call  the  bishops  '  angelical '  involved  no  doc- 
trine, whereas  to  call  Leo  '  (Ecumenical  Patriarch  '  did. 


DIOSCORUS   CONTUMACIOUS  243 

Dioscorus  had  now  definitely  refused  to  obey  the 
summons  of  the  Synod,  and  had  thus  involved  himself 
in  an  offence  against  the  canons,  which  rendered  all 
further  accusations  superfluous.  Accordingly,  the  Papal 
legate,  Paschasinus,  asked  the  bishops  to  declare  with 
their  own  mouth  what  he  deserved.  The  Synod  said 
that  he  incurred  the  penalty  assigned  by  the  canons  to 
contumacy.  Paschasmus  put  question  after  question, 
that  everything  might  be  done  by  the  Synod  itself  in  due 
order  and  with  the  utmost  plainness  of  speech.  He  was 
desirous  that  the  punishment  should  be  the  act  of  the 
entire  Synod.  Not  a  voice  was  raised  in  favour  of  the 
contumacious  Archbishop.  No  Egyptian  clamours,  no 
Illyrian  shouts,  but  in  perfect  calmness  and  without 
hesitation,  the  Synod  decided  that  this,  the  highest 
offence  known  to  canon  law,  should  be  visited  with  the 
proper  sentence.  Then  Julian,  Bishop  of  Hypsepae,  rose 
and  said  :  '  Holy  Fathers,  listen.  At  that  time  Dioscorus 
held  the  authority  of  judgment  ^  in  the  city  of  the 
Ephesians  and  meanwhile  he  deposed  the  most  holy 
Flavian  and  the  most  God-fearing  bishop  Eusebius, 
himself  passing  the  unrighteous  judgment  first,  and  all 
followed  by  compulsion.  Now,  your  Holiness  holds  the 
authority  of  the  most  holy  Archbishop  Leo,  and  your 
Holiness  and  the  whole  holy  Synod  assembled  by  the 
grace  of  God  and  the  command  of  our  most  God-fearing 
Emperors,  imow  all  the  injustice  perpetrated  at  Ephesus^ 
as  your  Holiness  also  knows  ;  and  thrice  has  it  summoned 

'   rh  Kvpos  .   .  .  Tov  Kpivaiu. 

-  I  have  followed  the  oldest  Latin  versions  here.  Cf .  Baluze's  note  *» 
in  Mansi,  vi.  1043.  The  Greek,  literally  translated,  makes  Julian  say 
that  the  whole  Synod  holds  the  authority  of  Leo.  But  it  hardly  seems 
likely  that  they  would  bring  this  in  here,  considering  the  context :  though 
I  cannot  be  sure  that  the  Greek  is  not  correct. 

&  2 


244  COUNCIL  OF  CHALCEDON 

Dioscorus  and  he  has  refused  to  obey.  We  [therefore] 
entreat  your  Holiness,  who  holds,  or  rather  who  hold,  the 
place  of  the  most  holy  Archbishop  Leo,  to  give  sentence 
against  him,  and  to  decree  against  him  the  penalty 
included  in  the  canons.  For  all  of  us,  the  whole  of  the 
(Ecumenical  Synod,  is  of  one  accord  with  your  Holiness.'  ^ 
Paschasinus  said  :  '  Once  more  I  say,  ''  What  pleases  [or 
meets  the  wishes  of]  your  Blessedness  ?  "  '  And  Maximus 
of  Antioch  said  :  '  What  seems  good  to  your  Holiness,  we 
also  agree  thereto.' 

Accordingly  the  legates  '  passed  sentence.'  ^ 

§  4.  The  Sentence. 

The  sentence  proceeded  on  the  following  grounds. 
1.  '  He  received  Eutyches,  holding  the  same  opinions, 

^  Lit.  '  becomes  one  in  vote  with' — <Tv[x^-n(pos  yivirai.  The  context 
seems  to  give  the  meaning  as  '  will  vote  with,'  or  '  pass  the  same  sentence 
as.'  So  Dr.  Bright  translates  the  answer  of  Maximus  :  '  We  will  vote 
with  you.' 

2  airecp-ni'avTo.  Cf .  Liddell  and  Scott  s.  v.,  and  Evagrius,  H.  E.  i.  §  4, 
used  of  the  sentence  of  the  Synod  deposing  Kestorius.  Dr.  Bright 
{Roman  See,  p.  293)  renders  '  proposed  a  sentence.'  This  is  nothing  less 
than  a  mistranslation.  The  legates  did  not  propose,  but  'gave,'  or 
'  issued  ' — not  '  a  '  but  '  the  '  sentence,  and  the  bishops  had  promised  to 
accept  it.  Dr.  Bright's  account  of  Julian's  speech  is  very  inadequate 
(p.  293,  note)  and  misleading.  He  omits  Julian's  saying  that  Dioscorus 
liad  '  the  authority  in  judging '  (rb  Kvpos  .  .  .  rov  Kpiveiu),  with  which  he 
compares  the  position  of  the  Papal  legates  ;  he  translates  irapaKa\ovfxev 
'  request '  (Lat.  petimus),  and  he  translates  avix^-ncpos  '^ivirai '  the  whole 
Council  was  avfj.\pTi<pos  with  them,'  instead  of,  as  on  p.  293,  '  we  will  vote 
with  you,'  which  is  the  real  meaning.  Then  he  calls  the  legates'  sen- 
tence '  their  speech,'  and  quotes  Tillemont's  misleading  representation 
of  ane(pr]vavro  as  '  avis.'  Then  he  asks  '  If  it  was  the  Synodical  sen- 
tence ' — whereas  it  was  the  sentence  adopted  by  the  Synod  beforehand — 
'  why  did  it  conclude  with  "  the  Synod  ^'Tj^iVeroi  according  to  the 
canons  "  ?  '  Because  the  Synod  had  promised  to  accept  the  sentence. 
The  future  is  equivalent  to  '  shall '  in  legal  documents. 

^  Mansi,  vi.  1045. 


SENTENCE   ON   DIOSCOEUS  245 

into  communion,  although  he  had  been  regularly  deprived 
by  his  own  bishop,  Flavian.  This  he  did  '  on  his  own 
authority,  before  he  sat  in  Council  with  the  God-beloved 
bishops.' 

2.  '  The  Apostolic  See  pardoned  the  latter  for  what 
was  done  by  them  against  their  will.'  '  They  have  con- 
tinued up  to  this  hour  obedient  to  the  most  holy  Arch- 
bishop Leo  and  the  whole  of  the  holy  (Ecumenical  Synod, 
on  which  account  he  received  them  as  one  in  faith  into 
communion  with  himself.  But  Dioscorus  has  continued 
up  to  the  present  to  glory  in  these  things  which  should 
be  his  shame.' 

3.  '  He  did  not  consent  to  the  Epistle  of  Leo  to  Flavian 
being  read,  although  frequently  entreated  to  read  it  and 
indeed  after  promising  on  oath  that  he  would.  Through 
this  letter  not  being  read,  the  Churches  of  God  through- 
out the  world  have  suffered  loss.' 

4.  All  these  things  might  have  been  pardoned,  but 
*  his  next  iniquity  exceeded  all  these,  for  he  dared  to 
dictate  a  sentence  of  excommunication  against  the  most 
holy  and  most  sacred  Archbishop  of  great  Eome,  Leo.' 

6.  Add  to  all  this  that  '  when  a  number  of  memorials 
accusing  him  of  irregularities  were  presented  to  the 
Synod,  and  he  was  thrice  summoned  to  attend  its 
session,  he  refused  to  come,  evidently  pricked  in 
conscience ;  and  he  received  those  who  had  been  canoni- 
cally  deprived  by  various  Synods.  Thus  he  bore  sentence 
against  himself.' 

Such  were  the  grounds  of  Dioscorus's  condemnation 
as  summarised  by  the  Papal  legates.  It  will  be  noticed 
that  they  refer  to  the  matter  of  faith ;  they  mention 
that  Dioscorus  was  '  of  the  same  opinion '  as  Eutyches, 
that  he  suppressed  the  Tome  of  Leo,  and  that  the  bishops 


246  COUNCIL  OF  CHALCEDON 

whose  action  at  the  Latrocinium  was  condoned  were  one 
in  teaching  (at  least  they  came  to  be  so)  with  Leo,  whereas 
Dioscorus  remained  obdurate,  and  so  the  condition  at- 
tached by  Leo  to  his  condemnation  was  fulfilled.  He  was 
proved  to  be  not  only  heterodox,  but  a  heretic.  But  as 
he  did  not  present  himself  to  the  Synod  to  be  examined 
by  the  bishops  in  this  strictly  episcopal  session  they 
condemned  him  for  what  he  was  proved  to  have  done. 
Had  he  come  to  the  Synod  at  this  session,  he  would  have 
been  convicted  of  heresy  also.^ 

And  now  for  the  sentence  itself.  The  legates  con- 
tinued : 

'  Wherefore  Leo,  the  most  holy  and  blessed  Arch- 
bishop of  great  and  elder  Eome,  by  us  and  the  present 
most  holy  Synod,  in  union  with  the  thrice-blessed  and  all- 
glorious  Peter,  the  Apostle,  who  is  the  rock  and  founda- 
tion of  the  Catholic  Church,  and  the  foundation  of  the 
orthodox  faith,  has  stripped  him  of  the  episcopate  and 
deprived  him  of  all  sacerdotal  rank. 

'  Therefore  this  most  holy  and  great  Synod  will  vote 
the  penalties  assigned  by  the  canons.'  ^ 

The  bishops  are  not  here  asked  to  consider  the 
sentence  or  to  revise  it,  or  to  make  any  suggestions  :  but 
the  legates  simply  say  that  the  bishops  will  as  a  matter 
of  course  accept  the  sentence  now  pronounced  and  pro- 
claim their  adhesion  to  it. 

The  act  of  deposition  was  thus  proclaimed  to  be  the 
act  of  Leo,  and  to  be  accomplished  '  with  Peter  the 
Apostle,  the  rock  and  foundation  of  the  Church.'     *  Leo 

'  So  Leontius,  De  Sectis,  act.  6. 

2  Mansi,  vi.  1048 :  to.  S6^avra  ro7s  Kavdaip.  Cf.  the  legates'  request, 
given  above,  that  the  bishops  would  declare  the  penalties  attached  by 
the  canons  to  Dioscorus's  offence. 


SENTENCE   ON  DIOSCORUS  247 

.  .  .  has  deprived  him.'  But  Leo  could  not  thus  act '  with 
Peter '  and  with  Peter  as  '  the  rock  of  the  Church  and 
the  foundation  of  the  orthodox  faith  '  and  in  such  an  act 
lead  the  Church  astray.  Else  Peter  would  not  prove  to 
be  the  '  rock.' 

But  the  act  of  Leo  was  rendered  extrinsically  greater 
by  the  action  of  the  Synol;  The  bishops  are  real  judges, 
and  by  their  adhesion  bore  witness  to  the  visible  unity  of 
the  Catholic  Church.  The  Papal  sentence  then  having 
been  delivered,  those  bishops  who  were  orthodox  would 
as  a  matter  of  course  connect  themselves  with  the  judg- 
ment of  the  Apostle  Peter.  *  Therefore  the  Synod  will 
adjudge  the  things  decreed  by  the  canons  '  were  the  words 
of  the  legates. 

Many  has  been  the  struggle  in  the  last  three 
centuries  to  evade  the  force  of  these  plain  words.  Appeal 
has  been  made  to  the  words  of  the  bishops  that  follow. 
But  so  far  as  the  doctrine  of  Papal  infallibility  is  con- 
cerned, the  appeal  is  in  vain.  They  only  say  exactly 
what  would  be  expected  in  accordance  with  that  doctrine. 
They  publicly  averred  that  they  adjudged  the  case  in 
the  same  way  as  Leo  had  done.  They  added  nothing  to 
the  intrinsic  value  of  the  judgment,  but  they  added 
much  to  its  persuasive  force.  The  judgment  became 
fuller,  but  not  more  certain.  The  unity  of  the  Church 
was  more  conspicuous  and  the  accidental  reasons  for 
accepting  its  judgment  were  increased. 

And  so  Anatolius  of  Constantinople  led  the  way.  He 
avowed  that,  '  being  of  one  mind  with  the  Apostolic 
throne,  he  voted  with  it,  or  adjudged  in  harmony  with 
it,  on  the  deposition  of  Dioscorus,'  on  the  ground 
that  he  had  incurred  the  penalties  of  the  canons  for 
having    disobeyed    its   threefold   summons.     Maximus, 


248  COUNCIL  OF  CHALCEDON 

the  Patriarch  of  Antioch,  agreed  with  Leo  and  (as  he 
could  now  add)  with  Anatolius.  Stephen,  the  Exarch  of 
Ephesus,  said  the  same.  Others  could  now  say  that 
they  agreed  with  these  '  fathers '  or  with  the  Synod,  for 
it  was  all  one  to  say  it  either  way.  The  act  of  Leo 
was  taking  up  into  itself  the  action  of  the  Synod.  It 
had  indeed  already  spoken  for  the  Synod,  for  before  any 
episcopal  signatures  or  affirmations  the  legates  had  said : 
*  Leo  ...  by  us  and  this  present  holy  Synod  .  .  .  has 
stripped  Dioscorus  of  the  episcopate.' 

Each  bishop's  declaration  was  a  definition,  each  was 
a  judgment,  each  was  a  decision,  as  the  action  of  the 
limbs  in  the  human  body  is  at  once  different  from,  and 
yet  one  with,  the  head.  Those  limbs  that  do  not  move 
concentrically  with  the  head  have  to  be  restored  to 
their  proper  dependence,  or  to  be  cut  away.  So  with  the 
affirmations  of  the  bishops  in  Council.  They  themselves 
selected  this  metaphor  in  writing  to  Leo.  He  was  their 
head,  they  the  members.  The  origination  of  the  move- 
ment was  his  ;  the  continuance  of  the  action  in  regular 
form  was  theirs.* 

The  sentence  as  communicated  to  Dioscorus  did  not 
give  the  bishops'  reasons  in  full,  but  merely  mentioned 
the  technical  point  of  his  disobedience  to  the  summons 
of  the  Synod,  besides  '  his  other  offences.'  ^     This  was 

*  The  calculations  of  Dr.  Bright  ( Eoman  See,  p.  183,  note)  as  to  the 
number  of  times  the  words  '  decide  '  '  define '  &c.  are  used,  add  nothing 
to  the  argument.  It  was  the  duty  of  all  bishops  to '  define  '  and  '  decide,' 
but  as  members,  not  as  head,  of  the  Synod — revolving  round  their 
centre,  and  not  out  of  their  orbit.  Dr.  Bright  on  another  page  (p.  293) 
renders  iyv/jLvwa-eu  [Leo]  '  deprives.'  As  he  is  summarising,  this  is  pre- 
sumably not  meant  for  a  translation.  But  it  misses  a  shade  of  meaning 
conveyed  by  the  Greek.  The  act  originated  with  Leo  the  head,  and 
received  its  external  completion  at  the  Synod.     It  is  '  Leo  ....  deprived.' 

2  Mansi,  vi.  1093, 


SENTENCE   ON   DIOSCORUS  249 

sufficient  for  the  purpose.  Those  who  expect  that  it 
should  bring  in  the  name  of  Leo  and  who  find  an  argu- 
ment in  its  describing  the  deposition  as  its  own  act 
might  as  well  deduce  something  from  their  not  mention- 
ing the  Holy  Trinity  as  they  did  on  one  occasion,  but  did 
not  in  their  short  summary  communication  to  Dioscorus, 
contained  in  a  single  sentence.  In  communicating  the 
deposition  to  the  clergy  of  Constantino]3le  they  allude  to 
the  many  ways  in  which  he  was  caught  violating  the 
holy  canons  and  the  discipline  of  the  Church,  but  in 
their  very  brief  document  they  lay  the  stress  on  his 
refusal  to  obey  the  summons  of  the  Council.^ 

But  they  wrote  two  official  reports,  one  to  the 
Emperors,  and  a  second,  when  their  numbers  were 
thinned,  to  St.  Leo  himself.  The  two  together  contain 
a  vast  amount  of  teaching  as  to  the  discipline  of  the 
Church.  The  latter  assigns  the  origination  of  the  whole 
matter  to  Leo ;  but  it  will  be  better  to  deal  with  this  in 
its  proper  place.  The  letter  to  the  Emperors  is  of  high 
importance,  as  in  this  they  give  the  grounds  of  their 
condemnation  in  full.- 

First,  Dioscorus  had  prevented  the  Pope's  letter  to 
Flavian  being  read  at  Ephesus. 

Next,  he  had  restored  Eutyches  '  sick  with  the  im- 
piety of  the  Manich^eans  '  to  his  priesthood  and  position 
in  his  monastery,  '  and  this  after  the  Bishop  of  Kome 

'  Mansi,  vi.  1096.  Dr.  Bright  remarks  that  *  instead  of  accepting  even 
constructively  [sic]  the  position  of  being  Leo's  minister,  the  Council 
repeatedly  describes  the  deposition  as  its  own  act '  (Roman  See,  p.  184). 
The  '  construction '  that  most  people  would  put  on  their  words  is  that 
they  did  not  feel  it  necessary  to  include  the  whole  theology  of  the  matter 
in  every  communication.  It  was  their  own  act,  but  not  exclusively 
such.     It  was  originated  by  Leo.     Cf.  p.  228, 

2  Mansi,  vi.  1097. 


250  COUNCIL   OF  CHALCEDON 

had  by  that  same  letter  decreed  what  was  fitting,  and 
had  condemned  the  perfidy  of  Eutyches  in  saying,  '*  I 
confess,  indeed,  that  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  was  of  (e/c) 
two  natures  before  the  union,  but  there  is  one  nature 
after  the  union."  ' 

The  quotation  is  from  the  Tome  of  Leo,  and  shows 
that  they  understood  the  latter  part  of  the  Tome  as 
a  juridical  sentence.  Dioscorus  had  seen  this  sentence 
which  the  Pope  passed  on  Eutyches,  and  had  suppressed 
the  Tome  in  which  it  occurred.  The  significance  of  this 
reason  must  not  be  overlooked. 

Thirdly,  his  misconduct  to  Eusebius  of  Dorylaeum 
was  scandalous. 

Fourthly,  he  had  received  into  communion  those 
who  had  been  put  out  of  communion,  thereby  offending 
against  the  canon  which  '  teaches  that  those  who  are 
excommunicated  by  one  should  not  be  received  into 
communion  by  another.' 

But  all  this  (the  Synod  says)  might  have  been  for- 
given ;  in  fact,  the  Pope  had  expressly  said  that  a  door 
of  repentance  was  to  be  left  to  the  last.  But  Dioscorus 
(possibly  just  before  the  Council  met)  gathered  together 
ten  bishops  and  induced  them  to  execute  the  farce  of 
excommunicating  St.  Leo  himself.  This  was  the  climax 
of  his  madness.  And  so  the  Synod  continues  its  report 
to  their  Imperial  Majesties  by  saying  that — 

Fifthly,  'beyond  all  this,  he  has  also  opened  his 
mouth  like  a  mad  dog  against  the  Apostolic  See  itself, 
and  has  endeavoured  to  frame  letters  of  excommunication 
against  the  most  holy  and  blessed  Pope  Leo.' 

And,  lastly,  '  has  persisted  in  his  iniquities  and  been 
contumacious  against  the  holy  and  (Ecumenical  Synod, 


SENTENCE   ON   DIOSCORUS  251 

refusing  to  answer  to  various  accusations  brought 
against  him.'  ^ 

He  remains,  therefore  (so  they  wrote  at  the  same 
time  to  the  Empress  Pulcheria), '  a  pillar  of  salt,  and  the 
rulers  of  the  various  Churches  have  regained  their  sees, 
Christ  our  Lord  having  prosperously  directed  their 
course,  Who  shows  the  truth  in  the  wonderful  Leo  ;  for 
as  He  used  the  sapient  Peter,  so  He  uses  also  this 
champion  of  the  truth,'  viz.  Leo.^ 

Such,  then,  was  the  faith  of  the  Church  in  the  East 
at  that  hour,  viz.  that  Peter  is  the  rock  in  Matt,  xvi  ; 
Leo  acted  '  with '  him  ;  and  that  in  the  Church's  gov- 
ernment of  souls,  Leo  takes  the  place  of  the  blessed 
Apostle  Peter.  The  bishops  of  the  Eastern  world  had 
gathered  round  their  centre,  '  the  Apostolic  throne,'  as 
they  called  the  See  of  Piome,  and  having  at  the  desire 
of  that  '  throne '  used  their  judgment  in  the  matter, 
they  had  endorsed  its  decision,  and  thus  manifested  the 
unity  of  the  Church.  The  Papal  had  become  a  Conciliar 
judgment,  not  as  though  the  (Ecumenical  Council  were 
a  thing  apart,  for  it  included  the  Pope  ;  but  the  Papal 

'  Dr.  Bright  {Roman  See,  p.  184)  says  :  '  Mr,  Eivington  stops  just  short 
of  the  momentous  words,  "  He  has  been  fittingly  deprived  of  his 
episcopate  by  the  Universal  Council."  '  I  do  not  know  why  these  words 
are  particularly  '  momentous,'  considering  that  the  report  is  giving  the 
reasons  of  the  Council's  action.  But  Dr.  Bright  appears  to  suggest  that 
there  is  some  '  suppression  '  in  my  account,  because  these  words  are  not 
tacked  on  in  this  place.  That,  however,  cannot  be,  for  I  have  begun 
with  stating  what  he  imagines  to  be  suppressed,  since  it  is  '  of  their  con- 
demnation,' as  I  have  called  it,  that  I  am  professedly  treating.  Here  I 
am  giving  the  grounds  of  tJie  Synodical  condemnation.  The  fact  itself  is 
placed  in  the  forefront,  that  it  is  *  their  condemnation,'  of  which  the 
grounds  are  given.  This  was  not  one  of  the  grounds.  In  fact 
Dr.  Bright's  remark  is  trivial :  it  gives  the  impression  of  some  terrible 
suppression,  when  there  is  none  whatever. 

2  Mansi,  vi.  1101. 


252  COUNCIL   OF  CHALCEDON 

judgment  had  extended  itself  so  as  to  gather  up  into 
itself  the  orthodox  Episcopate. 

Three  times  had  an  Alexandrian  *  Pope  '  deposed  a 
Bishop  of  Constantinople  in  this  century  :  Chrysostom  in 
403,  Nestorius  in  431,  Flavian  in  449.  Here  at  length 
a  Bishop  of  Constantinople  takes  the  first  place,  under 
Eome,  in  deposing  an  Alexandrian  '  Pope.'  ^ 

There  are  some  '  moments  '  of  history  which  deter- 
mine a  long  future.  Centuries  of  national  life  are 
affected  by  a  single  incident,  which,  of  course,  has  its 
roots  in  the  past.  The  deposition  of  Dioscorus  from  the 
pinnacle  of  power  to  which  he  had  climbed  in  449  was 
one  of  these.  The  Egyptians  clung  to  him,  eventually 
formed  a  national  independent  community,  and  passed 
out  of  the  unity  of  the  Church.  Separate  in  their 
religious  life  from  that  of  the  great  Catholic  stream, 
their  country  came  under  the  domination  of  Islam,  to 
be  delivered  from  the  thraldom  of  the  most  debasing 
tyranny  in  this  nineteenth  century  of  the  Christian  era, 
when  a  Gordon  died  for  their  deliverance,  and  a  con- 
queror has  taken  his  name  from  the  centre  of  the 
Khalifa's  rule. 

But  the  faith  remained,  not  with  Constantinople, 
who  concurred  with  Eome  in  the  deposition  of  the 
Alexandrian  Patriarch,  but  with  Eome  herself,  who 
had  now  to  settle  the  balance  disturbed  by  the  new 
heresy. 

Note  on  Dioscorus  being  put  on  his  Trial. 

Dr.  Bright  (1)  {Eoman  See,  pp.  278  and  181)  endeavours  to 
make  capital  out  of  the  fact  that  the  Imperial  Commissioners 
did  not  send  Dioscorus  out  of  the  building  altogether,  but  only 
'  Cf.  Duchesne,  Les  iglises  s^par^es,  p.  192. 


SENTENCE  ON   DIOSCORUS  253 

turned  him  out  of  his  seat  among  the  bishops,  as  though 
this  showed  that  they  owned  no  obedience  to  the  Pope  as 
*  head  of  all  the  Churches.'  Also  (2)  he  understands  them  to 
reprove  Lucentius,  the  legate,  for  washing  to  act,  or  actually 
posing,  as  accuser  of  Dioscorus,  whom  he  was  going  to 
judge  {ibid.). 

To  prove  (1),  he  translates  the  words  avrov  eto-eA^ovros 
avayKOLOv  icTTiv  iKecvio  avTLTeOrjvai  (Mansi,  vi.  581)  thus  :  *  When 
he  comes  in — i.e.  after  having  first  gone  out — it  will  be  neces- 
sary to  state  objections  against  him  '  {Roman  See,  211,  278). 
There  is  nothing  about '  first  going  out.'  The  literal  transla- 
tion is  :  '  He  having  entered  [i.e.  since  he  has  entered],  it  is 
necessary  that  he  should  have  been  opposed  (or  objected  to),' 
i.e.  that  his  sitting  side  by  side  with  the  rest  of  the  Council 
should  have  been  protested  against.  This,  viz.  the  not 
sitting  with  the  Council,  was  all  that  the  Pope  had  enjoined, 
OTTOJS  AiocTKopos  fxi]  (TvyKaOeaOrj  tw  avveSpto)  ;  the  going  OUtside 
the  four  walls  and  coming  in  again  was  merely  a  detail  which 
the  legates  suggested.  The  essence  of  the  Papal  injunction 
was  clearly  that  Dioscorus  was  to  be  put  on  his  trial,  and 
not  to  be  admitted  as  judge  of  anyone.  So  Evagrius  seems  to 
take  it  {H.  E.  II.  iv.  and  xvii.).  And  so  Quesnel  expresses  the 
legates'  contention  :  '  Id  mandatum  a  Leone  ne  ut  judex  sed 
utreus  admitteretur '  {Diss,  de  Vit.  Leonis,  Chalc.  Act.  I.).  The 
Commissioners  themselves  later  on  say  to  Dioscorus,  when 
outside  the  cu'cle  of  bishops,  *  You  sit  in  the  place  of  those 
under  accusation '  (Mansi,  vi.  645).  So  Natalis  Alexander  : 
'  Petentibus  legatis,  decernentibus  magistratibus,  Dioscorus 
in  synodo  sedere  prohibitus  est  ut  judex,  jussus  in  medio 
sedere  ut  reus '  {H.  E.  Vol.  IX.  cap.  iii.  Art.  xiii.  §  17).  And 
Mansi  himself  thus  writes :  *  Item  enituit  dominativa  S. 
Leonis  in  synodum  potestas  quia  jusserat  Dioscorum  in 
synodum  tamquam  episcopum  non  recipi  sed  solum  audiri, 
atque  ejus  praeceptis  synodus  obtemperavit '  (Nat.  Alex.  Diss, 
xii.  Animadv.  in  potestatem  dominativam  quam  exercuit  S. 
Leo  in  concilium  &c.  §  1).      The  Pope,  I  repeat,  had  not 


254  COUNCIL  OF  CHALCEDON 

entered  into  details,  but  merely  ordered  that  Dioscorus 
should  not  be  judge,  but  on  his  trial  the  legates  insisted 
that  by  way  of  executing  this  order,  Dioscorus  should  leave 
his  seat  at  once,  *  go  out,'  else  they  would  themselves  with- 
draw. The  Imperial  Commissioners  hesitated  at  this  strong 
measure,  and  wished  the  legates  to  accuse  him  there  and 
then  before  he  left  his  seat.  This  the  legates  refused  to  do. 
And  here  we  come  to  Dr.  Bright' s  second  misrepresentation 
of  the  scene ; 

For  (2)  the  magistrates  did  not  say,  either  '  sharply  '  or  at 
all,  to  the  legate  Lucentius,  as  Dr.  Bright  maintains  [Boman 
See,  p.  278),  '  If  you  claim  to  judge,  do  not  be  accuser  too,'  or, 
as  he  elsewhere  translates  {ibid.  p.  182),  *  If  you  represent  a 
judge,  you  must  not  be  accuser  as  well ; '  neither,  as  the  same 
writer  expresses  himself  elsewhere,  did  *  the  Commissioners 
tell  a  legate  that  he  had  no  business  to  be  both  judge  and 
accuser '  (Way marks,  p.  226,  note  4).  The  words  to  which  Dr. 
Bright  in  each  case  refers  his  readers  are  these  :  d  ZiKaaTov 
eTrevct?  irpoo'WTTOV,  u)s  8iKa^o//,ei/os  ovk  ocjSet'Aets  StKatoXoyetcr^at — 
*  If  you  hold  the  character  of  judge,  you  ought  not  (or  you 
are  under  no  obligation)  to  plead  your  case  as  one  on  trial.' 
How  Dr.  Bright  gets  '  accuser  '  out  of  8iKa^o/x,€i/os  .  .  .  8tKato- 
XoydaOai,  1  do  not  know.  Possibly  he  has  been  misled  by 
the  corrupt  Latin  text,  which,  however,  he  must  have  seen 
was  corrected  in  the  margin.  And  no  one  pretends  that  we 
have  the  Latin  original  even  of  Lucentius's  speeches  in  this 
case.  Neither  did  the  Imperial  Commissioners  speak  in 
Latin.  Besides  Dr.  Bright,  in  each  instance,  gives  his  refer- 
ences to  the  Greek.  The  fact  is  that  the  words  in  question 
were  obviously  addressed,  not  to  Lucentius  the  legate  at  all, 
but  to  Dioscorus.  It  is  inconceivable  that  they  should  be 
addressed  to  Lucentius,  since  he  had  refused  to  be  the 
accuser  of  Dioscorus ;  and  the  Commissioners,  as  repre- 
sentatives of  the  Emperor,  were  on  the  side  of  the  legates, 
so  far  as  sympathy  went ;  ^  whereas  these  words,  as 
'  Cf.  Harnack,  Hist,  of  Dogma,  iv.  217  (Tr.). 


SENTENCE   ON  DIOSCORUS  255 

addressed  to  Dioscorus,  explain  the  next  three  lines,  in 
which  we  are  told  that  Dioscorus  [left  the  seat  he  had  dared 
to  occupy  and]  '  sat  in  the  middle,'  the  place  for  the  accused. 
In  other  words,  he  was  transferred  at  the  instance  of  the 
legates,  pleading  the  order  of  *  the  head  of  all  the  Churches,' 
from  the  bench  to  the  dock.  So  that  what,  according  to  the 
Greek  text,  the  magistrates  had  said  to  Dioscorus  was  :  '  If 
you  hold  the  place  (or  represent  the  person)  of  a  judge,  you 
must  not  (=  cannot)  plead  your  cause  as  one  on  trial  {Slku- 
C6fx€vos).'  The  suppressed  inference  is  that  '  since  you  have 
to  answer  for  yourself  as  under  accusation,  it  follows  that 
you  cannot  sit  in  the  place  of  a  judge.'  The  magistrates  in 
fact  had  given  in  to  the  legate.  Accordingly,  Dioscorus  left 
the  seat  of  judge  for  the  place  of  accused.  It  will  be 
noticed  that  Dr.  Bright  not  only  mistranslates  SiKa^ofxevos  as 
*  accuser,'  but  he  translates  et  ^CKaarov  iirex^is  Trpoa-uJirov,  *  If 
you  claim  to  judge.'  This  is  doubly  wrong.  There  is 
nothing  in  the  Greek  to  justify  the  italicised  *  you ' ;  and 
cTrexets  is  invariably  followed  by  the  dative  when  it  signifies 
to  '  aim  at,'  so  that,  even  if  it  could  here  mean  *  claim,'  it 
would  naturally  have  been  followed  by  the  dative,  whereas 
TTpoa-wTTov  is  in  the  accusative  case. 

Dr.  Bright  accuses  me  of  culpable  omission  in  the  first 
edition  of  this  work  because  certain  words  to  the  legate  were 
not  given.  But  these  are  (1)  the  very  words  which  he 
has  mistranslated,  and  their  omission,  if  they  are  correctly 
translated,  does  not  interfere  with  the  substantial  accuracy 
of  the  narrative  as  I  have  given  it;  and  (2)  the  other 
(omitted)  words  are  those  which  Dr.  Bright  takes  to  be  an 
order  for  Dioscorus  to  leave,  not  merely  his  place  as  judge, 
but  the  building  itself,  a  detail  which  does  not  alter  the 
argument  as  to  the  deference  paid  to  the  decision  of  Leo. 
And  as  for  omissions,  it  is  only  right  to  say  that  Dr.  Bright 
in  his  somewhat  detailed  account  of  the  opening  scene  at 
Chalcedon  in  Wayrnarks,  p.  226,  omits  (1)  the  crucial  words 
'  who  is  the  head  of  all  the  Churches,'  though  this  was  the 


256  COUNCIL  OF   CHALCEDON 

ground  of  the  obedience  claimed  for  Leo's  order ;  also  (2)  the 
words  about  Dioscorus  having  to  give  account  of  his  own 
judgment  *  because  he  took  upon  himself  the  office  or 
character  (ttpoo-wttoj/)  of  judging  which  he  did  not  possess,' 
words  which  give  the  key  to  the  sentence  misunderstood  by 
Dr.  Bright ;  and,  lastly  (3),  he  omits  the  important  words 
*  which  is  not  competent  to  be  done '  from  Lucentius'a 
explanation  of  the  reason  why  Dioscorus  should  stand  out 
as  under  trial. 

On  the  whole,  when  we  remember  that  the  Emperor  had 
not  expressly  and  explicitly  summoned  Dioscorus  for  trial, 
and  yet  that  he  was  now  put  in  the  dock,  after  some  vacilla- 
tion on  the  part  of  the  Imperial  Commissioners,  in  obedience 
simply  and  solely  to  the  statement  of  the  legates  that  Leo, 
as  '  the  head  of  all  the  Churches,'  had  ordered  that  it  should 
be  so,  this  witness  of  the  opening  incident  in  the  Council  to 
the  prerogative  of  the  See  of  Peter  is  as  decisive  as  anything 
could  be.  A  year  before,  the  Archbishop  of  Alexandria  was 
master  of  the  position  throughout  the  East ;  at  this  hour  he 
was  in  the  dock  by  order  of  the  Bishop  of  Borne. 


CHAPTEE  III 

THE    council's    DEFINITION 

§  1.  The  Need  of  a  Bejinition 

The  Emperor  Marcian  in  his  letter  to  Leo  concerning 
the  Council  had  said  that  *  those  things  which  conduce 
to  the  [maintenance  of  the]  Catholic  faith  shall  be  laid 
down  as  yoitr  Holiness  in  accordance  ivith  the  canons 
of  the  Church  has  ruled^  ^  in  allusion  to  the  Tome,  or 
letter  to  Flavian.  The  Empress  Pulcheria  had  also 
said  to  Leo,  that  the  Council  was  summoned  in  order 
that  the  bishops  '  may  decide  hij  your  authority  in 
accordance  with  what  the  faith  and  the  Christian 
religion  demands.'  ^  These  two  utterances  must  be  borne 
in  mind  if  we  are  to  have  a  clear  view  of  the  situation. 
But  besides  this,  we  must  not  forget  that  Leo  had 
also  written  to  the  Emperor  Marcian  saying  that  he 
ought  to  '  order  that  what  had  been  established  by  the 
ancient  Council  of  Nicsea,  should  remain  firm.'  ^  He  had 
also  said  to  the  Synod  itself  that  they  were  to  take  care 
*  that  the  decisions  against  Nestorius  in  the  Council  of 
Ephesus,  over  which  Cyril  presided,  should  be  undis- 
turbed ; ' ''  and,  to  the  Empress  Pulcheria,  saying  that 
he  *  had  given  injunctions  to  his  legates  as  to  the  "  form  " 
\i.e.  of  sound  teaching]  which  they  were  to  preserve.'  ^ 

1  SttTUTToxre.     Cf.  Ball,  in  Leon.  Ep.  76.  -  Ep.  77- 

3  Ep.  90.  *  Ep.  93.  ^  Ep.  95. 

S 


258  COUNCIL  OF  CHALCEDON 

Further,  the  Emperors  had  written  to  the  bishops  of  the 
Council  saying  that  *  the  holy  Synod  in  the  city  of  Nicaea 
.  .  .  was  to  be  confirmed.'  ^ 

Now  it  was  not  possible  to  '  confirm  '  the  Nicene 
faith  by  merely  reciting  the  Nicene  Creed.  St.  Cyril 
had  expressly  told  Nestorius  that  it  was  not  sufficient 
for  him  to  do  that.  He  must  also  accept  the  authorised 
explanations  of  that  Creed. ^  At  the  Council  of  Ephesus, 
however,  the  bishops  had  not  themselves  drawn  up 
any  doctrinal  formulary  ;  they  had  simply  accepted  the 
ruling  of  Celestine  as  to  the  Hypostatic  union  as  in 
harmony  with  the  Nicene  faith,  and  thereupon  excom- 
municated Nestorius.^  But  the  Council  of  Chalcedon 
in  its  fifth  session  issued  a  new  doctrinal  formulary, 
based  on  the  Tome  of  Leo  ;  and  in  this  it  stood  alone 
up  to  this  time.  Its  formulary  was  not  a  Creed,  but 
an  explanation  of  one  point  in  the  Creed  of  Nicaea ; 
and  it  was  to  be  presented  to  those  suspected  of  heresy, 
not  in  lieu  of,  but  in  addition  to,  the  Nicene  Creed.  The 
work  of  drawing  up  this  definition  of  faith  now 
occupied  the  Council  during  three  sessions,  and  it  ad- 
vanced to  its  issue  by  three  stages.  First,  many  of  the 
bishops  refused  to  entertain  the  idea  of  framing  any 
such  definition,  but  they  were  overruled ;  next,  their 
conciliar  adhesion  to  the  Tome  on  which  the  definition 
was  based  had  to  be  publicly  proclaimed,  that  their  unity 
might  be  clear  and  emphatic  as  to  the  doctrine  to  be 
defined  ;  and  lastly,  they  had  to  be  guided  into  an 
accurate  expression  of  the  salient  point  set  forth  in  that 
Tome. 

And  all  through  this  matter  the  Imperial  Commis- 
sioners  acted   in   concert  with  the   Papal  legates.    As 

'  Mansi,  vi.  552.  -'  Ibid.  iv.  1071.  =  Cf.  supra,  p.  77. 


NEED   OF   A   DEFINITION  259 

Hefele  remarks,  the  practical  good  sense  exhibited  by  the 
Commissioners,  even  from  a  theological  point  of  view, 
leads  us  to  ask  whether  they  were  not  inspired  in  their 
conduct  of  the  business  by  the  Papal  legates.  Professor 
Harnack  deplores  the  ascendency  of  Leo  in  the  Council 
through  his  legates  ;  he  thinks  that  the  definition  of 
faith  framed  in  the  fifth  session  had  been  prepared  by 
them  beforehand  and  shown  to  Dioscorus  at  the  meeting 
between  him  and  the  Emperor  and  Empress  previous  to 
the  Council,  and  he  considers  that  '  the  disgrace  attach- 
ing to  this  Council  consists  in  the  fact  that  the  great 
majority  of  the  bishops  who  held  the  same  views  as 
Cyril  and  Dioscorus  finally  allowed  a  formula  to  be 
forced  upon  them  which  was  that  of  strangers,  of  the 
Emperor  and  the  Pope,  and  which  did  not  correspond  to 
their  belief.' ' 

Harnack's  theological  position,  unfortunately,  does  not 
allow  him  to  sympathise  with  the  Christology  taught  then 
and  ever  since  by  the  Catholic  Church  ;  and  he  draws 
such  a  sharp  line  of  distinction  between  East  and  West 
as  to  obscure  the  unity  of  the  Church,  so  that  the 
Eastern  Emperor  and  the  Pope  are  in  his  view  of  matters 

*  strangers  '  to  the  Eastern  bishops  ;  yet  his  account  is  so 
far  true  that  the  issue  of  the  Council  of  Chalcedon  was 
(as  events  proved)  a  purely  external  conformity  to  the 
Tome  of  Leo  on  the  part  of  some  of  the  bishops ;  but 
Harnack  immensely  overrates  the  minority  that  thus 
submitted. 

We  have  now  to  see  how  the  Commissioners  conducted 
their  delicate  task  of  fulfilling  the  Emperor's  order  that 

*  what  was  expedient  for  the  Catholic  faith  should  be  laid 
down   as  his  Holiness   [Leo]   in   accordance  with   the 

•  Hist,  of  Dogma,  iv.  215  (Tr.). 

s  2 


260  COUNCIL   OF   CHALCEDON 

canons  of  the  Church  decided,'  and  how  the  legates  exe- 
cuted the  order  of  Leo  to  keep  to  the  '  form  '  which  he 
had  given  them  in  his  Tome. 

The  matter  of  Dioscorus  having  been  so  far  settled  at 
the  first  session  as  that  he  was  judged  by  the  Imperial 
Commissioners  worthy  of  deposition,  though  the  sentence 
was  not  then  pronounced  but  deferred  until  the  second 
or  third/  the  Commissioners  and  Senate  had  closed  the 
first  session  with  saying  that  on  the  following  day  each 
of  the  bishops  must  forthwith  '  expound  his  faith  in 
writing.'  ^  They  at  the  same  time  bade  them  take  note 
that  the  Emperor  himself  '  believes  in  accordance  with 
the  ''  exposition  "  of  the  318  holy  fathers  at  Nicasa  and  in 
accordance  with  the  "  exposition  "  of  the  150  after  that, 
and  with  the  canonical  epistles  and  "  expositions  "  ^  of  the 
holy  fathers  Gregory,  Basil,  Athanasius,  Hilary,  Ambrose, 
and  the  two  canonical  letters  of  Cyril  confirmed  and 
published  in  the  first  Synod  of  Ephesus.'  And  they 
added  :  '  For  moreover  Leo,  the  most  reverend  Archbishop 
of  older  Eome,  has  sent  forth  "*  his  epistle  to  Flavian  of 
holy  memory  against  the  doubts  raised  by  Eutyches  in 
contradiction  to  the  faith  of  the  Catholic  Church.' 

One  or  two  points  need  to  be  noticed  in  this  injunc- 
tion of  the  Commissioners  which  is  the  keynote  to  three 
following  sessions.     In  the  first  place,  the  Constantino- 

'  I  have  anticipated  the  acts  of  the  third  session  in  the  account 
given  of  Dioscorus's  deposition,  in  order  to  give  the  narrative  a  certain 
unity.  It  is,  however,  possible,  though  (it  seems  to  me)  improbable,  that 
the  sequence  has  been  disturbed  in  the  ordinary  accounts. 

-  Mansi,  vi.  936 :  ottws  Tncrrevd,  tyypdcpws  iKOeaSai  inrouSaaa.Tw, 
yivdaKctJV  k.t,\. 

^  (paiverai  eKTre/nJ/as,  the  equivalent  of  i^(0iTo  which  is  used  by  the 
Emperor  of  Leo's  Bending  forth  his  Tome,  ibid.  937  ;  also  cf.  vii.  465,  for 
a  similar  use. 


NEED   OF   A   DEFINITION  261 

politan  Creed  is  expressly  mentioned  in  opposition  to  its 
indirect  repudiation  at  the  Latrocinium  by  Dioscorus  and 
his  followers.  In  the  next  place,  no  room  for  doubt  is 
left  as  to  the  ex  animo  reception  of  Leo's  Tome  by  the 
Emperor  and  his  representatives,  the  Imperial  Commis- 
sioners. Thirdly,  what  the  Emperor  and  his  representa- 
tives considered  the  subject  matter  for  the  Council's 
action  was  not,  in  reality,  the  truth  of  Leo's  teaching, 
but  the  extent  of  the  assent  given  to  it  by  the  bishops. 
For  the  Commissioners  distinctly  spoke  of  Leo's  Tome 
already  in  this  stage  as  having  opposed  the  teaching  of 
Eutyches  '  in  contradiction  to  the  faith  of  the  Catholic 
Church.' 

In  fact,  the  Becits  de  Dioscore  lets  us  know  that  before 
the  Council  the  Emperor  and  Empress  had  done  their 
best  to  persuade  Dioscorus  to  accept  Leo's  Tome,  but  in 
vain. 

And  now  in  entering  upon  the  session  in  which  the 
matter  of  faith  was  mooted  it  must  be  remembered  that 
Dioscorus' s  party,  though  small,  was  strong,  and  that 
their  position  was  this.  Flavian  had  been  condemned 
by  virtue  of  a  misrepresentation  of  the  seventh  canon, 
more  properly  called  simply  a  decree,  of  the  (Ecumenical 
Council  of  Ephesus.  Dioscorus  had  read  the  decree  as 
though  it  forbade  any  *  exposition '  ^  of  the  faith  other 
than  that  made  by  the  318  fathers  of  Nicaea.  Eutyches 
had  by  implication  excluded  even  the  Constantinopolitan 
form  of  the  Nicene  Creed,  and  had  been  defended  by 
Dioscorus.  But  Flavian  had  '  expounded  '  ^  the  faith  so 
as  to  show  that  there  was  in  the  Nicene  Creed  enough  to 
condemn  Eutyches,  and  he  was  himself  condemned  by 
Dioscorus  on  the  technical  ground  that  by  publishing  an 


262  COUNCIL  OF  CHALCEDON 

*  exposition  '  beyond  that  of  the  Nieene  fathers,  he  had 
offended  against  the  Ephesine  rule.^  This  was  the 
standpoint  of  the  faction  among  the  bishops  that  secretly 
adhered  to  Dioscorus.  This  the  Commissioners  knew 
well,  and  they  had  added  a  reason  why  the  bishops 
should  make  an  *  exposition,'  viz.  '  that  those  who  seem 
not  to  have  been  of  one  mind  with  the  rest  might  be 
brought  back  to  harmony  by  the  full  knowledge  of  the 
truth.'  When,  therefore,  it  was  proposed,  as  it  was  in 
the  next  session,  in  the  same  terms  as  in  the  first,  that 
the  bishops  should  make  an  '  exposition,'  they,  or  rather 
some  of  them,^  exclaimed  against  such  a  course.  They 
had,  doubtless,  other  grounds  for  protesting ;  they 
were  in  secret  sympathy  with  Dioscorus.  The  Commis- 
sioners, then,  having  spoken  again  of  the  Emperor's  ad- 
hesion to  '  the  faith  handed  down  by  the  318,  and  by  the 
150,  and  moreover  by  the  rest  of  the  holy  and  illustrious 
fathers '  (those  mentioned  at  the  end  of  the  first  session), 
and  having  asked  the  bishops  '  to  expound  the  faith 
clearly,'  ^  the  latter  burst  into  the  exclamation  :  *  No  one 
makes  another  exposition,  nor  do  we  attempt  nor  dare  to 
"  expound  "  ;  for  the  fathers  have  taught,  and  the  exposi- 
tions made  by  them  are  preserved  in  writing :  besides 
those  we  cannot  say  [anything].' 

'  Mansi,  vi.  907. 

2  Ibid.  953.  Eusticus  in  his  Annotation  here  says  expressly  that  it 
was  only  some  of  the  bishops  that  thus  exclaimed.  He  apparently 
argues  from  the  omission  of  the  word '  all.'  And  Eusticus's  experience  and 
the  fact  that  he  studied  the  records  in  Chalcedon,  or  Constantinople,  in 
the  following  century,  make  him  an  important  witness.  I  have  treated 
his  suggestion  as  one  of  great  value.  If  all  the  bishops  thus  exclaimed, 
all  one  can  say  is  that  they  afterwards  all  changed  their  minds  and  made 
an  '  exposition,'  which,  of  course,  was  not  a  Creed.  There  was  no  question 
about  framing  a  Creed. 

3  ^KQeffBai. 


NEED   OF  A   DEFINITION  263 

Cecropius,  Bishop  of  Sebastopol,  by  way  of  strengthen- 
ing their  contention,  added :  '  The  Eiitychian  matter  has 
sprung  up ;  on  this  a  "  form  "  ^  has  been  given  by  the 
most  holy  archbishop  at  Eome,  and  we  go  by  it,^  and 
have  all  subscribed  the  letter.'  Upon  which  the 
bishops  shouted :  '  This  we  all  say ;  the  expositions 
suffice ;  it  is  not  competent  to  us  to  make  another 
exposition.'  In  other  words,  '  We  all  agree  that  we  are 
guided  by  the  authoritative  decision  of  Leo  on  the 
Eutychian  heresy,  so  that  no  exposition  is  needed  in 
regard  to  that :  therefore  the  expositions  already  made 
suffice — we  are  not  permitted  to  make  another.'  They 
were,  as  the  event  shows,  mistaken  in  their  application 
of  the  Ephesine  rule.  It  did  not  forbid  a  fresh  conciliar 
*  exposition  '  such  as  was  contemplated  in  this  case,  for 
such  an  exposition  would  not  consist  in  inserting  any- 
thing into  the  Creed  itself,  to  be  presented  to  converts  ; 
it  would  only  be  an  explanation.^ 

The  Imperial  Commissioners  were  by  no  means 
satisfied  with  this.  They  therefore  proposed  that  '  the 
patriarchs  of  each  diocese  '  (using  '  diocese  '  in  the  sense 
of  a  group  of  provinces)  should  gather  in  the  middle  of 
the  church  and  deliberate  about  the  faith  in  common, 
and  then,  if  all  agreed,  well  and  good  ;  if  not,  they  would 
make  their  opinions   known.     But   again   the   bishops 

•  rviros,  here,  an  authoritative  mould,  an  ordinance,  in  the  full  sense 
of  the  term. 

-  (TTOLxovfiev  avT(f. 

^  Of  course,  it  was  also  true  that  the  authority  of  the  Council  of 
Chalcedon  was  equal  to  that  of  Ephesus.  And  what  the  purely  Eastern 
Council  of  Constantinople  could  do,  that  the  (Ecumenical  Council  of 
Chalcedon  could  also  do,  viz.  develop  the  Creed.  But  it  decided  not  to 
do  that.  These  same  persons  actually  proposed,  in  the  fifth  session,  to 
insert  the  word  Q^otokos  into  the  Creed. 


264  COUNCIL   OF   CHALCEDON 

shouted :  '  We  make  no  exposition  :  the  canon  rules 
that  the  expositions  suffice ;  the  canon  rules  that  no 
fresh  exposition  should  be  made ;  let  those  of  the  fathers 
prevail.' 

In  fact,  as  has  been  already  observed,  no  doctrinal 
definition  had  been  issued  by  the  (Ecumenical  Council  of 
Ephesus.  Nestorius  had  been  condemned  on  the  ex 
cathedra  judgment  of  Celestine,  which  contained  a 
mention  of  the  Hypostatic  union, ^  and  decided  that  this 
doctrine  was  expressed  m  the  term  '  Mother  of  God,'  but 
the  Council  itself  was  not  called  upon  to  frame  any 
exposition  of  the  faith  in  explanation  of  its  teaching. 
And  these  bishops  at  Chalcedon  seem  to  have  argued 
that  it  was  not  competent  for  them  to  engage  in  such 
work,  but  that  it  came  under  the  prohibition  of  the 
Ephesine  Synod.  They  appear  to  have  thought  that  if 
they  could  not  '  expound '  in  the  shape  of  a  Creed,  they 
could  not  expound  at  all.  In  this  they  were  mistaken, 
and  eventually  they  submitted  to  the  proposal  of  the 
Imperial  Commissioners,  inspired  as  these  evidently 
were  by  the  Papal  legates. - 

Florentius,  Bishop  of  Sardis,  was  the  first  to  give  in, 
if  indeed,  as  may  be  doubted,  he  had  joined  in  the  cries 
of  protest.  By  way  of  executing  the  wishes  of  the 
magistrates,  he  first  deprecated  being  called  on  to  draw 
up  anything  offhand.^  He  described  himself  as  among 
those — indeed  he  seems  to  have  spoken  for  all — '  who 
had  been  taught  to  follow  the  Nicene  and  Ephesine 
Synods  in  accordance  with  the  faith  of  the  holy  fathers, 

'  Mansi,  iv.  548-552. 

2  See  note  on  p.  292  for  a  criticism  of  Dr.  Bright's  remarks  on  this 
incident. 


NEED   OF  A   DEFINITION  266 

Cyril,  and  Celestine,  and  with  the  epistle  of  the  most 
holy  Leo.'  He  asked  therefore  for  a  time  to  be  fixed, 
'  so  that  we  may  approach  the  truth  of  the  matter  with 
becoming  consideration,  although  certainly  as  regards 
our  own  selves,  who  have  subscribed  the  letter  of  Leo, 
we  need  no  setting  right.'  In  other  words,  to  have 
subscribed  the  Tome  of  Leo  was  a  sufficient  guarantee  of 
orthodoxy.  His  request  for  an  interval  of  delay  was 
a  reasonable  one,  for  some  time  was  necessarily  required 
to  frame  a  doctrinal  definition  expounding  the  truth 
which  was  denied  by  Eutyches,  and,  as  he  must  have 
known  well,  was  not  clearly  (if  at  all)  held  by  the 
faction  of  Dioscorus.  Cecropius,  accordingly,  spoke 
again,  and  proposed  what  was  a  natural  preliminary  to 
the  work  before  them.  '  The  faith,'  he  said,  '  has  been 
well  expressed  ^  by  the  318  holy  fathers,  and  has  been 
confirmed  by  the  holy  fathers— Athanasius,  Cyril, 
Celestine,  Hilary,  Basil,  Gregory,  and  now  again  by  the 
most  holy  Leo  ;  and  we  beg  that  the  [expositions]  of  the 
318  fathers  and  of  Leo  be  read.'  ^ 

It  will  be  noticed  that  he  omits  any  mention  of  the 
150  fathers  or  of  Cyril :  probably  because  the  Imperial 
and  Papal  order  was  that  whatever  was  decreed  was  to  be 
in  accordance  with  the  faith  of  Nicaea  as  explained  by 
Leo.  It  was  necessary,  therefore,  to  have  at  least  these 
two  documents  read  publicly. 

The  Commissioners  accordingly  had  the  Nicene 
Creed  read,  which  was  followed  by  exclamations  such  as 
'  In  this  we  were  baptised,'  '  Blessed  Cyril  thus  taught,' 
*  Pope  Leo  thus  believes,'  '  Pope  Leo  has  thus  inter- 
preted ' — declarations  which   must   be   borne   in   mind 

■  etp-qTai  is  undoubtedly  the  right  reading.   Cf.  Evagrius,  H.  E.  ii.  18. 
^  Simply  Tck  Tcov  .   .   .   irarepuv  k.  t,  Aeouros. 


266  COUNCIL  OF  CHALCEDON 

when  we  come  to  the  bishops'  signatures  to  the  Tome  in 
the  succeeding  session. 

Next  the  Constantinopolitan  form  of  the  Creed  was 
read,  which  had  been  obliquely  depreciated  at  the  Latro- 
cinium.  The  exclamations  as  given  in  the  record  were 
few :  nothing  was  said  about  their  having  been  baptised 
into  it.^  As  a  matter  of  fact,  most  Churches  of  the 
East  still  gave  the  original  form  of  the  Nicene  Creed  to 
their  candidates  for  baptism.  The  Roman  Church 
presented  only  the  Apostles'  Creed.  At  Antioch  the 
Constantinopolitan  was  not  sung  at  every  solemn  Mass 
until  the  time  of  Peter  the  Fuller,  but  only  on  Easter 
Sunday.  But  it  received  here  at  Chalcedon  a  more 
public  welcome  than  it  had  received  before.  For  the 
record  says,  '  All  the  most  reverend  bishops  cried  out, 
"  This  is  the  faith  of  all ;  we  all  believe  thus."  ' 

Next,  at  the  proposal  of  Aetius,  Archdeacon  of  Con- 
stantinople, two  letters  of  Cyril  were  read — his  second 
letter  to  Nestorius  and  his  letter  to  John  of  Antioch, 
both  of  which  as  the  archdeacon  remarked,  had  received 
the  Church's  sanction.  Their  recitation  was  followed  by 
cries  of  the  bishops  to  the  effect  that  Cyril  and  Leo  were 
really  at  one. 

Then  was  read  the  Tome  of  Leo,  after  which  the 
bishops  burst  into  the  following  cries,  probably  as  a 
kind  of  war  song,  with  slight  intonations  :  *  This  is  the 
faith  of  the  fathers,  this  the  faith  of  the  Apostles.  We 
all  believe  thus  ;  the  orthodox  thus  believe.  Anathema 
to  him  who  does  not  thus  believe.  Peter  has  uttered 
these  things  through  Leo.  The  Apostles  taught  thus. 
Leo  has  taught  piously  and  truly.  Cyril  thus  taught. 
Everlasting  be  the  memory  of  Cyril.     Leo  and   Cyril 

•  Mansi,  vi.  957. 


NEED   OF  A  DEFINITION  267 

have  taught  alike.  Anathema  to  him  who  does  not  thus 
believe.  This  is  the  true  faith.  We  the  orthodox  thus 
think.  Thisis  the  faith  of  the  fathers.  Why  was  not  this 
read  at  Ephesus  ?     This  is  what  Dioscorus  concealed.'  ^ 

Two  things  need  to  be  noticed.  First,  even  if  the 
Tome  of  Leo  had  not  before  this  been  part  of  the  rule  of 
faith  (as,  nevertheless,  we  have  seen  it  was)  it  certainly 
was  such  at  this  hour.  The  '  anathemas '  settle  that 
question.  This  is  to  be  borne  in  mind  in  view  of  the 
next  session.  Secondly,  it  is  only  when  we  come  to 
Leo's  Tome  that  the  mention  of  the  Apostles  and  the 
name  of  Peter  occurs  in  the  exclamations. 

But  during  the  reading  of  St.  Leo's  Tome,  the 
Imperial  secretary  was  three  times  interrupted  by  the 
Illyrian  and  Palestinian  bishops.  It  must  be  re- 
membered that  the  latter  were  under  the  jurisdiction  of 
Juvenal  of  Jerusalem,  who  had  failed  so  conspicuously  at 
the  Latrocinium.  Why  the  Illyrians  made  so  much 
trouble  in  the  Council,  it  is  difficult  to  say.  But  the  two 
together  formed  but  an  infinitesimal  portion  of  the  vast 
assembly.  They  were  not  joined  in  this  action  of  theirs 
by  the  Egyptian  bishops,  who,  as  we  shall  see,  had  their 
own  line  of  action.  But  these  forty-eight  bishops  (out 
of  600)  from  Illyria  and  Palestine  were  dealt  with  in 
most  considerate  fashion.  Three  passages  in  St.  Leo's 
Tome  caused  them  difficulty.  They  could  not  under- 
stand how  they  could  be  reconciled  with  Cyril's  teaching, 
which  yet  had  been  sanctioned  by  the  Church.  It  was, 
as  they  said  in  the  next  session,  a  matter  of  phraseology 
which  confused  them  ;  ^  they  did  not  presume  to  imply 
that  the  occupant  of  the  Holy  See  was  not  orthodox. 
This  they  distinctly  asserted."^     Two  of  these  passages 

'  Mansi,  vi.  972.     ^  ^  ^  (ppda-is  Su<rray  ijvlrTeTo  {ibid.  vii.  32).      ^  jj^^^  39. 


268  COUNCIL   OF   CHALCEDON 

were  explained  by  Aetius  the  Archdeacon,  and  the 
third  by  Theodoret.  In  each  case  some  passages  from 
Cyril  were  produced  to  show  the  conformity  of  teaching. 

At  the  conclusion  the  Commissioners  and  Senate 
asked  if  any  doubted,  and  the  answer  shouted  out  was 
'  No  one.'  But  it  was  assumed  that  not  all  joined  in  the 
cry,  and  accordingly  Atticus  of  Nicopolis  asked  that  an 
interval  of  a  few  days  should  be  allowed  them  and  that 
since  '  the  letter  of  our  lord  ^  and  most  holy  father  and 
archbishop  Leo  '  had  been  read,  they  might  be  allowed 
to  take  with  them  for  perusal  the  letter  of  Cyril  to  which 
the  twelve  Anathematisms  were  attached,  so  that  in  the 
time  of  discussion — i.e.  as  to  the  definition  of  faith  to  be 
drawn  up — '  they  might  be  fully  provided.'  Five  days 
were  granted  and  they  were  to  meet  at  the  house  of 
Anatolius  and  '  consult  in  common  concerning  the  faith,  so 
that  those  who  doubt  may  be  taught.'  '  All  the  bishops  ' 
then  repudiated  the  idea  that  anyone  doubted,  for  they 
had  signed  the  Tome  of  Leo.  Still  the  Commissioners, 
who  knew  well  that  some  needed  instruction,  as  their 
interruptions  had  shown,  persisted  that  Anatolius  should 
select  some  of  those  who  signed  {i.e.  the  enormous 
majority)  and  who  were  fitted  to  teach  the  others. 

The  Nestorians,  in  after  times,  adduced  this  treat- 
ment of  the  Illyrian  and  Palestinian  bishops  as  a  flaw  in 
the  Council  of  Chalcedon,  for,  they  urged,  the  bishops 
were  placed  under  Anatolius  to  be  taught,  when  Anatolius 
was  a  known  sympathiser  with  Dioscorus  and  tinged 
with  Eutychian  tendencies.  But  Anatolius  had  signed 
the  Tome  of  Leo  and  publicly  proclaimed  his  intention  to 

'  Mansi,  vi.  974.  The  word  SeairdTrjsis  used  in  the  Council  of  Chalce- 
don (i)  of  our  Divine  Lord,  (ii)  of  the  Emperor,  (iii)  of  the  Pope,  and  of 
no  one  else. 


NEED   OF   A   DEFINITION  269 

force  it  on  the  acceptance  of  those  under  him  under 
anathema  ;  although  it  is  true  that  he  was  still  some- 
what leavened  with,  not  Eutycliian,  hut  Alexandrian 
sympathies.  And  his  action  in  the  fifth  session  was 
corrected  by  that  of  the  Papal  legates. 

So  far,  it  will  be  seen,  there  was  no  conciliar  investi- 
gation or  examination  of  the  Tome  of  Leo,  unless  any- 
one were  to  dignify  with  such  a  name  the  interruptions 
of  these  few  Illyrian  and  Palestinian  bishops,  who  were 
immediately  set  right  by  the  Archdeacon  and  Theodoret, 
or  unless  we  consider  the  decision  of  the  Commissioners 
and  Senate  to  refer  these  few  bishops  to  Anatolius  to  be 
'  taught '  in  his  house,  a  conciliar  examination.  In 
truth,  the  objection  that  has  been  so  confidently  raised, 
that  the  Tome  of  Leo  was  sanctioned  by  the  Synod  after 
examination  as  by  a  superior  authority,  collapses  for 
want  of  evidence,  so  soon  as  we  take  the  whole  of  the 
facts  into  consideration.  So  far,  it  had  been  made  from 
the  very  beginning  the  test  of  orthodoxy.  The  bishops,  by 
signing  it,  witnessed  to  their  own  orthodoxy  rather  than 
set  a  seal  to  that  of  Leo.  Their  witness,  however,  did  give 
to  the  Tome  that  external  recommendation  which,  though 
not  needed  for  the  strong,  was  calculated  to  assist  the 
weak  by  its  impressive  exhibition  of  the  Church's  unity. 
And  as  events  proved,  every  help  was  needed  to  preserve 
the  faith  in  the  coming  century. 


CHAPTER  IV 

THE    council's   DEFINITION 

§  2.  The  Adhesion  to  Leo's  Tome  as  a  necessary 
Prelimi7iary 

We  have  now  reached  the  second  stage  in  the  proceedings 
immediately  concerning  the  faith.  That  part  of  the 
minutes  of  the  previous  session  was  re-read  in  which 
the  Commissioners  and  Senate  had  requested  that  each 
bishop  should  make  an  '  exposition,'  to  teach  (that  is, 
to  exercise  their  office  of  teaching  in  a  solemn  way) 
what  all  were  to  hold.  The  object  had  been  distinctly 
stated,  viz.  that  as  there  were  a  few  who  appeared  to 
differ  from  the  great  majority,  '  these  might  be  brought 
into  harmony  by  a  full  knowledge  of  the  truth ' — the 
*  truth '  being,  according  to  the  Emperor's  faith,  the 
Nicene  Creed,  as  amplified  by  the  150  fathers  at  Con- 
stantinople in  381,  and  as  interpreted  by  the  Council  of 
Ephesus  under  Cyril, in  431  in  respect  to  the  heresy  of 
Nestorius,  and  again  as  interpreted  by  the  Tome  of  Leo 
in  regard  to  the  heresy  of  Eutyches.^  It  is  of  the  utmost 
importance  to  bear  this  expressly  stated  object  in  mind. 
They  were  not  engaged  in  investigating  any  question 
as  to  whether  the  Nicene  Creed  was  true,  or  whether  its 
amplification  at  Constantinople,  or  its  interpretation  at 
Ephesus  and  again  by  Leo,  was  valid  ;  they  were  asked 

•  Mansi,  vi.  252. 


ADHESION   TO   LEO'S  TOME  271 

simply  to  confirm  all  four  by  a  public  conciliar  adhesion 
and  a  fresh  pronouncement  of  the  Episcopate  as  to  the 
agreement  of  these  four  expositions.  There  was,  how- 
ever, a  difference  between  the  Tome  or  epistle  of  Leo 
and  the  three  former  :  these  latter  had  been  already  con- 
ciliarly  promulgated ;  the  Tome  had  not.  The  bishops 
had,  indeed,  pronounced,  and  collectively  pronounced, 
an  anathema  on  anyone  who  did  not  believe  in  the 
teaching  of  Leo  on  the  subject  of  the  Incarnation ;  they 
had,  with  very  few  exceptions,  signed  that  document  as 
expounding  the  orthodox  faith ;  and  when  they  found 
that  a  small  handful  of  bishops  could  not  see  how  three 
passages  in  it  could  be  reconciled  with  the  teaching  of 
Cyril— through  ignorance,  as  it  proved,  of  Cyril's  writings 
— they  had  committed  these  to  the  care  of  Anatolius  and 
some  others,  to  be  '  taught ' ;  they  had  also,  during  the 
last  five  days,  considered  the  best  way  of  formulating 
their  faith  on  the  basis  of  Leo's  Tome. 

But  now  they  issued  forth  from  their  more  private 
considerations,  and  were  to  teach  before  the  world  what 
their  faith  was,  that  (so  the  Commissioners  had  said  in 
effect)  proclaiming  their  own  unity  they  might  teach  the 
world  with  one  voice.  They  themselves,  or  rather  a 
minority  of  them,  the  least  naturally  disposed  to  exalt 
unduly  the  Apostolic  See,  afterwards  described  their 
situation  thus :  they  spoke  of  '  the  knowledge  of  the 
Lord  '  '  which  the  Saviour  brought  us  from  above,' '  which 
you  yourself '  (Leo)  '  preserved  as  a  golden  chain  reaching 
down  to  us  by  the  precept  of  the  Lawgiver,  being  consti- 
tuted the  interpreter  of  the  voice  of  Peter  to  all,  and 
yourself  bringing  the  blessedness  of  his  faith  to  all, 
whence  we  also,  using  you  as  the  originator  of  what  was 
good  \h.e,  the  true  faith],  showed  forth  the  inheritance  of 


272  COUNCIL   OF   CHALCEDON 

the  truth  to  the  children  of  the  Church.'  *  Such  is  their 
own  account  of  what  took  place.  Let  us  compare  this 
with  the  actual  minutes  of  the  Council. 

The  Commissioners  thus  addressed  the  reassembled 
Synod :  '  The  decisions  previously  arrived  at  having 
now  been  made  plain ' — i.e.  the  minutes  of  the  previous 
session  about  the  duty  of  the  bishops  having  been  read 
— *  let  the  Synod  itself  teach  what  has  been  decided 
concerning  the  faith.'  The  Papal  legates  at  once  stepped 
forward  and  said  :  *  The  holy  and  oecumenical  and  blessed 
Synod  holds  fast  the  rule  of  faith  of  the  318,  expounded 
by  them  at  Nicsea,  and  likewise  the  definitions ;  and 
further  the  Synod  of  the  150  gathered  together  at  Con- 
stantinople under  Theodosius  the  Great  of  blessed 
memory :  the  exposition  of  which  Creed  ^  at  the  Synod 
at  Ephesus  under  Cyril  of  blessed  memory,  in  which 
Nestorius  was  condemned,  it  likewise  embraces.  But 
also  the  letter  sent  by  the  most  blessed  Leo,  Archbishop 
of  all  the  Churches,  makes  clear  what  the  true  faith  is  : 
likewise  also  the  holy  Synod  holds  this  faith  ;  this  it 
follows  ;  and  it  allows  nothing  further  to  be  added  or  to 
be  taken  away.'  ^ 

This  solemn  exposition  of  the  teaching  of  the  Synod 

»  Leon.  Ep.  08. 

2  Mansi,  vii.  9.  Notice  that  the  Nicene  faith  is  said  to  be  '  confirmed  ' 
by  the  Eastern  Synod  of  381,  and  that  the  word  '  exposition  '  is  not  the 
equivalent  of  '  Creed,'  since  here  it  is  used  of  the  action  of  putting  forth 
the  Creed  :  ovtlvos  avix^oKov  ri]v  '^Kdeaiv  are  the  Greek  words.  So  that 
Dr.  Bright  is  mistaken  in  identifying  iKQ^ffis  with  the  '  Creed  '  simply 
{Roman  See,  p.  186). 

^  Thus,  again,  Dr.  Bright  is  mistaken  in  imagining  that  the  bishops 
thought  that  the  Ephesine  rule  did  not  forbid  additions  to  document^ 
like  the  Tome  {ihid.).  Mansi  says  :  Fatentur  nil  addendum  seumutan- 
dum  iis,  quce  S.  Leo  in  sua  epistola  docuerat  {/hiim.  in  Nat.  Alex. 
H.E.  ix.  524.) 


ADHESION  TO   LEO'S  TOME  273 

was  uttered  in  Latin,  although  Paschasinus  was  acquainted 
with  Greek,  but  it  was  the  custom  that  the  utterances  of 
Papal  legates,  when  specially  solemn,  should  be  made  in 
Latin,  and  then  translated  into  Greek.  This  being  done, 
the  bishops  exclaimed  :  '  We  all  believe  thus ;  so  we  were 
baptised  ;  so  we  believed  ;  so  we  believe.'  ^ 

Now  these  bishops  were  not  informing  the  world  that 
the  Nicene  Creed  was  true  ;  they  were  bent  on  no  such 
superfluous  errand :  they  were  proclaiming  that  the 
Creed  as  expoimded  by  the  150  fathers,  by  the  Council 
of  Ephesus,  and  by  Leo,  was  the  faith  of  the  Church. 
They  were,  therefore,  now  asked  to  say  this  (which  they 
had  already  said)  in  presence  of  the  holy  Gospels,  which 
had  been  placed  in  their  midst — in  a  word,  to  confirm  it 
by  oath — or,  as  the  Commissioners  put  the  matter, 
'  Since  we  see  the  holy  Gospels  placed  in  front  by  your 
Eeverence,  let  each  of  the  bishops  assembled  here  teach ' 
[not  merely  say,  but  say  as  holders  of  the  teaching  office 
in  common  with  the  occupant  of  the  Holy  See]  '  whether 
the  exposition  of  the  318  fathers  assembled  at  Nicasa,  and 
after  that  the  150  assembled  in  the  Imperial  city,  agrees 
with  the  letter  of  the  most  reverend  Archbishop  Leo.' 

What  this  really  comes  to,  if  we  connect  it  with  what 
had  gone  before,  is  this  :  let  each  publicly  and  solemnly 
say  if,  as  is  of  course  the  case,^  the  doubts  which  a  few 
had  felt,  or  pretended  to  feel,  have  been  removed,  and  if 
the  harmony  of  which  we  spoke  in  the  beginning  has  been 
restored  '  by  the  full  knowledge  of  the  truth,'  so  that  you 
hold  the  same  faith  as  the  Emperor  holds,  viz.  the 
Nicene  Creed  as  interpreted  by  Leo. 

•  Cf.  Appendix  on  '  The  Epistle   to  Flavian  irreformable  from  the 
first,'  for  the  significance  of  the  bishops'  signatures  in  this  session. 
■^  The  6i  is  followed  by  the  indicative. 

T 


274  COUNCIL   OF  CHALCEDON 

Anatolius  responded  at  once,  saying  that  the  letter  of 
Leo  agrees  with  the  Symbol  of  Nicsea,  confirmed  by  the 
150,  and  with  the  transactions  of  the  (Ecumenical  Council 
of  Ephesus  under  Cyril,  when  Nestorius  was  condemned. 
'  Wherefore  I  assented  and  willingly  subscribed.' 

Now  Leo  had  told  Anatolius  to  read  his  Tome  care- 
fully and  to  compare  it  with  the  letters  of  Cyril,  and  to 
sign  it  as  '  the  confession  of  the  common  faith,'  and 
having  done  this  to  make  a  declaration  before  all  the 
clergy  and  the  whole  flock  of  Constantinople,  and  then 
'  to  notify  the  fact  publicly  to  the  Apostolic  See  and  to 
all  the  Lord's  priests  [i.e.  the  bishops]  and  Churches.' 
He  had  at  the  same  time  sent  four  legates  whose  business 
it  was  '  to  declare  the  exact  faith  which  we  hold,  the 
form  of  our  faith,  so  that  if  the  Bishop  of  Constantinople 
consents  to  the  same  confession  of  faith,  with  his  whole 
heart,  we  may  feel  secure  and  rejoice  in  the  peace  of  the 
Church.  If,  however,  there  is  any  dissent  from  the 
purity  of  our  faith  and  the  authority  of  the  fathers,  a 
Council  must  be  held  in  Italy,  so  that  it  may  not  be  open 
to  anyone  to  talk  about  the  Nicene  Creed  and  yet  be  in 
opposition  to  it. '  '  And  Anatolius  had  done  this,  as  we 
learn  from  a  letter  which  Pulcheria  wrote  to  Leo  in 
November  (450).^  And  accordingly,  the  Pope  told  Ana- 
tolius that  he  joined  him  with  the  legates  for  '  the  execu- 
tion of  his  decree.'  ^  Anatolius,  therefore,  in  this  fourth 
session  of  Chalcedon  merely  said  before  the  Council  and 
in  presence  of  the  holy  Gospels  what  he  had  already 
publicly  declared  to  the  bishops  of  his  eparchy,  and  in 
immediately  succeeding  the  Papal  legates  he  was  acting 
according  to  Leo's  arrangement. 

But  Paschasinus  now  rose  again  and  in  the  name  of 

Leon.  Ep.  69.  -  Ep.  77.    ^  Ep.  85  : '  executionem  nostrse  dispositionis.' 


ADHESION  TO  LEO'S  TOME        275 

the  legates  made  the  following  statement :  *  It  is  clear 
and  it  cannot  be  disputed  that  there  is  one  faith  of  Leo 
the  most  blessed  Pope,  prelate  of  the  Apostolic  See, 
agreeing  with  the  faith  of  the  318  holy  fathers  who 
assembled  at  Nicaea,  and  of  the  150  assembled  at  Con- 
stantinople, as  also  that  those  things  hold  which  were 
decided  at  Ephesus  under  Cyril  of  holy  memory,  when 
Nestorius  was  deposed  on  account  of  his  particular  error, 
and  that  there  is  nowhere  any  discordance  whatever. 
Therefore  also  the  epistle  of  the  most  blessed  Pope, 
which  has  been  shown  to  have  expounded  that  faith  on 
account  of  the  error  of  Eutyches,  agrees  in  sense  and 
spirit  with  that  faith.'  ^ 

Natalis  Alexander  thinks  that  Paschasinus  in  these 
words  objected  to  the  exact  shape  in  which  the  Com- 
missioners had  put  the  matter  before  the  bishops.  They 
had  called  on  them  to  say  whether  the  Tome  agreed 
with  the  Nicene  Creed  and  the  decrees  of  Ephesus. 
This  may  be  so  ;  but  the  words  used  by  the  Commis- 
sioners do  not  necessarily  suggest  any  possibility  of 
doubt.  The  mere  fact  of  thus  solemnly  confirming  may 
seem  to  have  called  for  an  emphatic  declaration  from 
the  legates  that  what  they  and  the  rest  of  the  bishops 
were  now  doing  involved  no  admission  as  to  the  possi- 
bility of  the  Tome  being  other  than  dogmatically  true. 
It  is  to  be  noticed  that  Paschasinus  does  not  '  ground 
the  claim  of  the  Tome  to  acceptance  on  its  agreement 
with  the  two  forms  of  the  Creed  and  with  the  Cyrilline- 
Ephesine  dogma,'  as  a  recent  writer  has  stated.^     That 

'  Mansi,  vii.  10.  Cf.  for  the  true  reading  the  Constitutum  of  Vigilius, 
in  which  this  speech  is  recited  word  for  word  (Mansi  ix.  473). 

"^  Bright,  Roman  See,  p.  190.  He  refers  Paschasinus's  words,  'ideo- 
que,  Tovrov  xop"'.'  to  the  agreement  of  the  Tome  with  the  Creed.  But 
this  is  to  violate  the  syntax  of  the  passage.    Paschasinus  says  '  Ka\ 

T  2 


276  COUNCIL   OF   CHALCEDON 

was  a  claim  to  acceptance,  but  not  the  one  that  Pas- 
chasinus  emphasised  on  this  occasion.  He  said  that 
the  Tome  agreed  with  the  Nicene  Creed  because  it  con- 
tained the  faith  of  Leo,  and  because  no  one  could  doubt 
that  the  faith  of  Leo  agreed  with  the  Creed  of  Nicaea, 
and  with  the  dogma  of  Cyril  at  Ephesus.  Reasserted, 
in  the  language  of  the  time,  the  infallibility  of  the  Holy 
See.  Paschasinus  thus  gave  the  keynote  to  the  meaning 
of  the  bishops  in  subscribing  to  the  Tome.  As  Mansi 
says  ;  '  If  the  subscriptions  of  the  fathers  of  Chalcedon 
be  consulted,  which  we  have  in  the  fourth  "  Action,"^ 
we  shall  find  that  as  the  rest,  so  the  legates  of  St.  Leo 
received  his  (Leo's)  letter  as  most  accordant  with  the  three 
previous  Councils.  But  as  it  is  certain  that  they  did 
not  receive  it  precisely  on  the  authority  of  the  preceding 
Councils,  but  because  it  contained  the  definition  of  the 
Apostolic  See,  and  so  had  always  wished  the  fathers  of 
the  Synod  to  be  conformed  to  that  Tome  and  had  already 
declared  in  the  second  '  Act '  that  nothing  could  be  added 
thereto  or  taken  from  it,  so  it  is  to  be  believed  the  others 
did,  although  they  compared  it  to  the  previous  definitions 

Toirov  xap"'  the  Tome  agrees  with  the  Creed  ' — not,  the  Tome  agrees 
with  the  Creed  and  therefore  we  accept  it,  but  the  Tome  contains  the  faith 
of  Leo  and  therefore  it  agrees  with  the  Creed.  Dr.  Bright  also  says  that 
'  on  Mr.  Rivington's  showing,  they  ought  to  have  proclaimed  the  principle 
of  papal  infallibility.'  I  said  no  such  thing,  but  on  the  contrary  my  words 
were, '  What  was  then  needed  was,  not  an  act  of  faith  in  the  infallibility  of 
the  Vicar  of  Christ,  but  an  intelligent  adhesion  to  his  dogmatic  decree,' 
(p.  414,  1st  ed.).  But  as  a  matter  of  fact  Paschasinus's  words  do  seem 
to  involve  a  belief  in  that  infallibility. 

'  Dr.  Bright  has  a  characteristic  passage  on  these  subscriptions, 
which  he  says  extend,  with  the  Latin  rendering,  over  nearly  thirty-seven 
columns  of  Mansi's  seventh  volume  '  {Roman  See,  p.  189),  but  which  he 
understands  in  quite  a  different  sense  from  Mansi  himself.  The  meaning 
of  one  is  the  meaning  of  all.  The  present  writer  had  (as  above)  taken 
Mansi's  view  of  the  matter  in  the  first  edition  of  this  book. 


ADHESION  TO   LEO'S  TOME  277 

of  Councils  the  more  so  as  nearly  the  whole  Syhod  had 
protested  that  it  believed  as  was  defined  in  the  letter, 
before  any  examination.'  ^  Golden  words  these  from  the 
great  Dominican  archbishop  whose  name  occurs  on  every 
page  of  Dr.  Bright's  work  on  the  Koman  See.  Mansi 
warns  us  against  '  stopping  short  at  the  rind,'  as  they 
do  who,  because  the  fathers  said  that  the  letter  of  Leo 
agreed  with  the  definitions  of  previous  Councils,  jump 
to  the  conclusion  that  these  fathers  thought  it  might 
possibly  have  disagreed  with  those  definitions.  Neither 
is  such  an  expression  as  *  we  found  '  that  the  Tome 
agreed,  or  '  we  have  proved,'  equivalent  to  saying  '  we 
found  to  our  surprise,'  or  *  we  should  not  have  believed  in 
it  if  we  had  not  proved  it.'  When  we  consider  the  cha- 
racter and  the  ignorance  of  some  of  these  bishops — two  of 
them  in  the  Latrocinium  could  not  sign  their  names — and 
the  circumstances  under  which  they  acted,  it  must  be  felt 
that  it  was  of  the  last  importance  to  send  them  forth,  not 
merely  to  say,  '  the  Tome  must  be  right  because  it  ema- 
nated from  the  Holy  See,'  but  *  we  can  prove  it  to  be 
right,  having  been  carefully  taught,  or  having  learned  for 
ourselves,  that  it  is  as  a  matter  of  fact  in  perfect  accord 
with  the  standards  already  acknowledged  as  such.' 

In  the  course  of  the  episcopal  declarations,  the 
lUyrian  bishops  made  a  statement  in  which  they  said 
that  their  difficulty  had  arisen  from  the  obscurity  of 
language,  which  seemed  to  suggest  a  division — i.e.  a 
Nestorian  division — into  two  Persons,-  but  that  Anatolius 
had  set  them  right.  The  Palestinian  bishops  said  the 
same. 

'  Nat.  Alex.   vol.  ix.  Mansi,  Animadv.  in  potestatem  dominativam 
quam  exercuit  Leo  in  concilium  Chalcedonense,  §  iii.  1.  p.  525. 
-  ti  t]  (ppdais  SuaTau  tjVittcto  (vii.  32;. 


278  COUNCIL  OF  CHALCEDON 

The  declarations  over,  some  of  the  bishops  pleaded 
that  the  five  bishops,  Juvenal,  Thalassius,  Eusebius  (of 
Ancyra),  Basil,  and  Eustathius,  who  had  taken  a  leading 
part  at  the  Latrocinium,  should  be  admitted  to  the 
Council,  as  they,  too,  had  signed  the  Tome  of  Leo.  The 
matter  was  referred  to  the  Emperor,  who  referred  it  back 
to  the  Synod.  The  bishops  were  admitted  amidst  cries  of 
*  Long  live  the  Emperor  ;  long  live  the  Commissioners  ; 
long  live  the  Senate.  This  is  the  peace  of  the 
Churches.' 

Peace,  however,  was  not  quite  restored.  A  scene  of 
excitement  ensued  upon  the  Egyptian  bishops  reading  a 
petition  which  they  had  presented  to  the  Emperor,  con- 
taining a  confession  of  faith  which  omitted  all  reference 
to  Eutyches.  It  was  probably  the  confession  drawn  up 
by  Dioscorus  with  considerable  subtlety  and  presented 
to  the  Emperor  just  before  the  Synod,  to  induce  his 
Imperial  Majesty  to  allow  him  to  go  to  the  Synod,  after 
eluding  actual  subscription  to  the  Tome.^  These 
Egyptians  were  now  called  upon  from  all  sides  to 
anathematise  Eutyches  and  to  sign  the  Tome  of  Leo.^ 
They  refused  to  do  the  latter  on  the  technical  ground 
that  no  Egyptian  could  sign  any  confession  of  faith 
without  his  patriarch.  They  pleaded  the  sixth  Nicene 
canon  in  their  behalf.  One  of  the  bishops  of  Lower 
Armenia  seems  to  have  suggested  (in  strict  accordance 
with  the  canons)  that  a  General  Council  could  override 
the  powers  of  a  single  patriarch,  whose  jurisdiction  was 
dormant  at  such  a  time.     And  another  bishop  (of  Tyre) 

'  Cf.  Lupus,  Appendix  ad  Sym.  Chalc.  Act.  iv.  and  also  the  R4cits  de 
Dioscore,  which  also  shows  that  the  Egyptian  bishops  were  under  the 
complete  tyranny  of  Dioscorus.  They  feared  to  go  to  Chalcedon  to 
oppose  Leo.    Kome  and  Alexandria  had  always  been  such  friends. 

-  Mansi,  vii.  52. 


ADHESION   TO   LEO'S  TOME  279 

remarked  that  these  Egyptians  could  not  take  part  in 
the  ordination  of  a  new  patriarch  until  they  were  at  one 
with  the  Council.'  In  the  midst  of  all  the  cries  and  the 
arguments  with  which  they  were  plied,  they  now  threw 
themselves  on  the  ground  and,  prostrate  before  their 
fellow-bishops,  called  themselves  dying  men.  They 
would  be  murdered  on  their  return.-  They  were,  they 
said,  but  few,  and  the  bishops  of  Egypt  were  numerous  ; 
they  could  not  dare  to  represent  the  rest  of  Egypt. 
To  which  it  was  replied  that  they  came  to  the  Synod  for 
that  purpose.  Still  they  lay  prostrate,  and  continued 
to  plead.  But  the  bishops  did  not  believe  them.  They 
appealed,  however,  to  Anatolius,  who,  as  an  Alexandrian 
himself,  knew  the  Egyptian  canons  ;  and  eventually 
they  were  allowed  to  wait  until  a  new  patriarch  was 
ordained  by  the  Synod,  as  it  was  within  the  power  of  a 
General  Council  to  appoint  a  successor  to  Dioscorus. 

And  now,  passing  over  the  rest  of  the  business  of 
this  session,  which  concerned  certain  Archimandrites 
and  dealt  with  the  case  of  Photius  of  Tyre,  we  come  to 
the  third  and  concluding  stage  in  the  settlement  of  a 
definition.     It  was  the  fifth  session. 

*  Mansi,  vii.  56. 

-  Harnack  remarks  that  their  fear  of  Coptic  fanaticism  was  greater 
than  their  confidence  in  the  Imperial  police  of  Egypt. 


CHAPTER  V 

THE    council's    DEFINITION 

§  3.  The  legates  prevail 

Bishop  Hefele  has  remarked  concerning  the  fifth 
session  of  the  Council  of  Chalcedon  that  it  is  '  one  of  the 
most  important  in  Christian  antiquity.'  It  is  certainly 
one  of  the  most  interesting. 

A  conflict,  which  at  one  moment  seemed  likely  to 
wreck  the  Council,  arose  between  the  Papal  legates  and 
the  Imperial  Commissioners  on  the  one  side,  and  almost 
the  whole  of  the  Council  on  the  other.  Harnack  thinks 
that  the  'Robber- Synod  '  (a  term  against  which  he  pro- 
tests) does  not  compare  unfavourably  with  the  Council  of 
Chalcedon.  The  justification  of  such  an  assertion  is  to 
be  found,  if  anywhere,  in  this  fifth  session,  in  which  he 
considers  that  the  bishops  put  force  on  their  consciences 
and  accepted  a  formula  merely  out  of  deference  to  the 
Emperor  and  the  Pope.  We  hold  no  brief  for  the 
behaviour  of  Eastern  bishops  in  a  Council.  Being,  as 
the  Councils  of  Ephesus  and  Chalcedon  were,  the  occa- 
sion of  bringing  the  members  of  the  episcopate  into 
unity  with  their  visible  head,  there  might,  on  a  priori 
grounds,  be  any  amount  of  pain  in  stretching  and 
setting  broken  or  injured  limbs.  It  is,  however,  absurd 
to  compare  any  of  the  sessions  of  the  Council  of 
Chalcedon    to   the   action   of   the   Latrocinium.     There 


THE   DEFINITION  281 

was  no  injustice  done  here,  as  there  ;  there  was  no 
actual  violence ;  and  as  regards  the  bishops'  submission 
it  was  a  matter  of  mere  consistency  with  themselves  to 
insert  in  their  formula  what  they  had  already  asserted 
to  be  of  faith,  viz.  the  terms  contained  in  the  Tome  of 
Leo. 

In  the  discussion  at  this  session  everything  turned 
upon  two  expressions — viz.  *of  two  natures'  and  *in 
two  natures.'  Eutyches  had  said  at  the  Council  of 
Constantinople  in  448  :  '  I  confess  that  our  Lord  was  of 
two  natures  before  the  union,  but  I  confess  one  nature 
after  the  union,'  on  which  words  St.  Leo  remarked  in 
his  Tome,  '  It  is  as  impious  to  say  that  the  Only-begotten 
Son  of  God  was  of  two  natures  before  the  Incarnation 
as  it  is  unlawful  to  assert  that  there  is  only  one  nature 
in  Him  after  the  Lord  was  made  flesh.'  ^  St.  Leo  thus 
condemned  the  expression  '  of  two  natures  before  the 
Incarnation  ' ;  but  the  words  '  of  two  natures  '  by  them- 
selves were  perfectly  capable  of  an  orthodox  sense,  and 
had  been  used  by  St.  Flavian  in  condemning  Eutyches. 
They  were,  however,  also  capable  of  an  unorthodox  sense, 
as  appears  from  the  fact  that  Dioscorus  used  them  to 
express  his  own  doctrine.  On  the  other  hand  the  ex- 
pression '  in  two  natures  '  was  incapable  of  any  such 
unorthodox  interpretation.  It  did  not  occur,  however, 
in  the  definition  now  presented  by  the  bishops,  whereas 
the  expression  *  of  two  natures  '  did.^  The  legates  ac- 
cordingly insisted  upon  the  substitution  of  'in  two 
natures,'  as  conveying  the  teaching  of  Leo's  Tome. 
They  thus  precluded  the  idea  of  the  existence  of  our 
Lord's  Humanity  previous  to  the  Incarnation,  or  of  its 

•  Ep.  28.  c.  vi. 

2  This  proposed  definition  is  not  extant.    But  what  we  have  said 


282  COUNCIL   OF   CHALCEDON 

unreality  after  the  Incarnation.  They,  or  at  any  rate 
the  majority  of  them,  did  indeed  give  to  the  word  '  of '  an 
orthodox  meaning,  for  they  did  not  deny  the  coexistence 
*  of  two  natures  '  after  the  union  at  Nazareth.  But  with 
Eutyches  the  expression  was  originally  meant  to  suggest 
the  unreality  of  the  human  nature,  and  was  connected 
with  Apollinarian  teaching ;  and  Dioscorus  had  himself 
clung  to  the  first  phrase,  and  repudiated  the  second. 

When,  then,  the  bishops  met  on  October  22  and 
their  exposition  was  read  containing  the  expression  *  of 
two  natures  '  and  omitting  '  m  two  natures,'  the  Bishop 
of  Germanicia  demurred  to  the  acceptance  of  such  a 
definition.  Anatolius  now  rose  and  vigorously  defended 
it,  and  the  church  was  filled  with  the  approving  cries  of 
the  bishops.  They  declared  that  they  all  accepted  it, 
and  even  went  so  far  as  to  say  that  anyone  who  re- 
pudiated it  was  a  heretic.  It  was,  if  we  may  so  speak,  a 
crisis  in  the  history  of  the  Church.  If  we  did  not  know 
what  happened,  we  might  well  hold  our  breath  in 
suspense.  Would  a  definition  be  accepted  which,  al- 
though not  meant  in  a  heterodox  sense,  yet  contained 
terms  which  might  be  accepted  by  a  Eutychian  ? 
Would  a  formula  of  comprehension  find  its  way  into  the 
Church,  so  that  opposing  parties  could  sign  the  same 
formulary,  setting  each  its  own  meaning  on  it,  each  re- 
taining its  own  opinion  on  the  point  of  dispute  ?  Could 
anything  be  more  entirely  subversive  of  the  teaching 
character  of  the  Church  ? 

The  bishops,  it  appears,  were  still  possessed  with 
the  idea  that  somehow  the  orthodox  teaching  concerning 
the  '  two  natures '   in   Christ  involved   the  heresy  of 

results  beyond  dispute  from  what  the  bishops  said  about  the  one  ex- 
pression, and  from  their  insisting  on  the  insertion  of  the  other. 


THE  DEFINITION  283 

Nestorius — which  spoke  of  two  persons  in  our  Incarnate 
Lord.  They  even  cried  out  for  the  insertion  of  the  term 
'  Mother  of  God  '  in  the  Creed  itself,  and  they  called  the 
objecting  Bishop  of  Germanicia  a  Nestorian,  as  he  passed 
across  the  church  to  the  side  of  the  legates.  The 
situation  was  critical  to  the  last  degree.  The  Papal 
legates  nov;  rose  from  their  seats  with  the  objecting 
Bishop  of  Germanicia  by  their  side  and  absolutely  con- 
demned the  proposed  definition.  They  insisted  on  an 
exact  adherence  to  the  teaching  of  Leo's  letter,  and,  to 
show  they  were  in  earnest,  they  announced  their  determi- 
nation to  ask  for  Imperial  rescripts  to  enable  them  to 
return  at  once  to  Rome  and  have  a  Council  celebrated 
there,  if  the  bishops  did  not  consent  to  the  letter  '  of  the 
Apostolic  and  most  blessed  man  '  Leo.  But  the  Imperial 
Commissioners,  who  were  present  at  this  session  with- 
out the  Senate,  having  the  management  of  the  external  ^ 
business  of  the  Council,  anxious  to  save  the  bishops  from 
this  humiliation,  proposed  that  six  bishops  should  be 
chosen  from  the  *  Diocese  '  of  Antioch,  three  from  the 
region  of  Asia  (as  being  not  one  of  the  Patriarchates), 
three  from  lUyricum,  three  from  Pontus,  three  from 
Thrace,  and  that,  Anatolius  and  the  Roman  legates  being 
present,  the  matter  should  be  arranged  between  them. 

But  no— the  bishops  clung  to  their  definition.  They 
became  more  emphatic,  not  to  say  excited,  than  ever. 
They  demanded  that  their  formulary  should  be  signed 
at  once  in  presence  of  the  holy  Gospels.     The  Commis- 

'  Harnack  misrepresents  Hefele's  statement  about  the  relation  of  the 
Imperial  Commissioners  to  the  Council.  It  was,  according  to  Hefele, 
purely  external,  and  as  such  real  and  official,  but  not  (which  is  missed  by 
Harnack)  above  that  of  the  legates  in  '  spirituals.'  Cf.  Harnack,  Hist,  of 
Dogma,  iv.  214  (Tr.),  and  Hefele,  Conc.-Gesch.  §  188. 


284  COUNCIL   OF   CHALCEDON 

sioners  reminded  them  that  Dioscorus  had  approved  of 
the  phrase  complained  of  (viz.  '  of  two  natures  ')  and  had 
deposed  Flavian  for  the  use  of  '  in  two  natures.'  Where- 
upon Anatolius  made  the  unhappy  remark  that  Dioscorus 
was  not  excommunicated  because  he  was  a  heretic  but 
[only]  because  he  had  pretended  to  excommunicate  Leo, 
and  after  being  twice  summoned  had  refused  to  attend 
the  Council.  Anatolius's  sympathy  with  his  old  master 
showed  itself  in  this  misleading  statement/  and  the 
Commissioners,  fully  alive  to  the  gravity  of  the  situation, 
seem  to  have  felt  the  necessity  of  intervening  with  a 
question  which  could  only  receive  one  answer  :  '  Do  you 
accept  the  letter  of  Leo  ? '  to  which  the  bishops  replied 
at  once  in  the  affirmative,  appealing  to  the  fact  that  they 
had  signed  it.  '  Then,'  replied  the  Commissioners  at 
once,  '  let  what  is  inserted  in  it  be  inserted  in  the  dej&ni- 
tion.'  2  The  bishops  protested  that  there  was  no  differ- 
ence between  their  definition  and  the  Tome  of  Leo. 
They  wildly  averred  that  '  the  definition  contains  every- 
thing.' They  argued,  not  without  a  certain  astuteness, 
that  Leo  and  Cyril  were  at  one  in  their  faith,  that  Cyril's 
teaching  had  been  confirmed  by  two  Popes,  Celestine  and 
Xystus,  and  their  definition  (such  was  the  supposed  con- 
clusion) being  in  conformity  with  Cyril's  teaching  was 
necessarily  in  conformity  with  that  of  Leo. 

The  Commissioners  decided  that  the  matter — not  of 
faith,  but  of  how  the  bishops  were  to   be   brought   to 

'  Leontius  of  Byzantium  deals  very  conclusively  with  this  objection 
in  his  Apology  for  tlie  Council  of  Chalcedon.  He  says  that  because 
Dioscorus  was  condemned  on  the  formal  ground  of  disobedience  to  the 
canons,  he  was  not  therefore  absolved  from  the  charge  of  heresy,  which 
was  implied  in  all  that  was  done.  The  whole  Apology  is  worth  reading. 
It  is  printed  in  Mansi,  vii.  800-824. 

-  Mansi,  vii.  10-1. 


THE   DEFINITION  285 

submit  to  the  exact  terminology  of  the  Tome  of  Leo  in 
their  definition — must  be  referred  to  the  Emperor. 

There  was  accordingly  a  pause  while  the  Imperial 
secretary  was  sent  across  to  the  Imperial  Palace. 

The  crisis  that  had  been  reached  was  this.  The 
whole  Council,  after  having  formally  declared  the  irre- 
formable  character  of  Leo's  Tome,  were  yet  introducing 
an  expression  into  their  definition  which  was  quite 
insufficient  to  guard  the  truth,  and  which,  standing 
alone,  would  have  the  effect  of  producing  a  system  of 
*  comprehension  '  than  which  nothing  could  be  more  sub- 
versive of  real  unity.  To  put  forth  a  document  which 
each  party  could  read  in  its  own  sense  would  be  to  sur- 
render the  truth.  The  Church  would  stultify  herself  as 
a  teacher. 

The  Emperor's  answer  came  back,  clear  and  straight- 
forward. Three  courses  were  open  to  them,  either  to 
agree  upon  an  authoritative  decision  which  could  not  be 
excepted  against,^  by  means  of  a  sub-committee,  exactly 
such  as  had  been  proposed,  or  each  one  singly  to  declare 
his  faith  through  his  metropolitan,  or  else  the  case  must 
be  carried  to  '  the  West,'  ^  i.e.  to  Borne. 

The  state  of  excitement  may  be  measured  by  the 
answers  of  the  bishops  to  this  Imperial  command. 
They  exclaimed  :  '  Either  let  the  definition  stand,  or 
we  depart.'  Cecropius  asked  that  the  definition  be  read 
and  those  who  contradicted  it  could  go.  The  Illyrian 
bishops  cried  :  '  Those  who  contradict  [the  definition]  are 
Nestorians.     Let  those  who  contradict  it  go  to  Borne.'  ^ 

The  Commissioners  now  brought  matters  to  a  head. 
They  said  plainly  :  'Dioscorus  said,  "  The  [phrase]  '  of  two 

•  di'67rtA'^'7rTa)S  rmrwaai  (vii.  105).  -  iv  ro7s  SvtikoIs  fifpecriv. 

'   eh  'P(a/J.r]v  aireKdwatv. 


286  COUNCIL   OF  CHALCEDON 

natures  '  I  accept ;  *  two  natures  '  [i.e.  that  there  exist 
two  natures  after  the  union] '  I  do  not."  '  *  But,'  continued 
the  Commissioners,  '  the  most  holy  archbishop  Leo  says 
that  there  are  two  natures  in  the  Christ  united  without 
confusion,  change,  or  division — in  the  one  Only-begotten 
Son,  our  Saviour.  Which,  therefore,  do  you  follow — the 
most  holy  Leo,  or  Dioscorus  ? ' 

The  cry  rose  up,  '  Leo.'  '  We  believe  as  Leo ;  those 
who  gainsay  are  Eutychians.  Leo  expounded^  in  an 
orthodox  way.'  '  Then,'  replied  the  Commissioners,  *  add 
to  the  definition,  according  to  the  judgment  of  the  most 
holy  Leo,  that  there  are  two  natures  united  in  the  Christ 
without  change,  or  division,  or  confusion.' 

The  commission  of  bishops  thereupon  entered  into  the 
compartment  of  the  Church  in  which  they  had  previously 
consulted  and  when  they  came  forth,  their  definition 
contained  no  longer  the  ambiguous  expression  *  of  two 
natures,'  but  instead,  the  crucial  words  '  in  two  natures  : ' 
that  is  to  say,  that,  after  the  union  effected  at  Nazareth 
when  the  Archangel  Gabriel  said,  '  Hail  Mary,  full  of 
grace,  the  Lord  is  with  thee,'  there  were,  and  ever  must 
be,  two  natures,  the  Divine  and  the  human,  unconfused, 
in  the  One  Person  of  our  Lord.  When  they  returned 
to  the  church,  the  definition  was  read  and  accepted 
without  dissent.  The  firmness  of  the  legates  had  saved 
the  situation.  Their  decision  to  withdraw,  for  a  Council 
to  be  held  in  the  West— which  meant,  of  course,  under 
Leo — helped  the  Imperial  Commissioners  to  see  that 
unless  exact  submission  was  paid  to  the  Tome  of  Leo  in 
the  conciliar  definition,  all  hope  of  peace  was  gone.  And 
the  bishops  themselves,  having  learnt  that  the  Emperor 

1  Mansi,  vii.  105  :  i^edero.    Again,  clearly  eKQiais  cannot  be  absolutely 
identified  with  '  Creed.' 


THE   DEFINITION  287 

would  insist  upon  the  case  being  carried  to  Eome,  if  they 
did  not  make  up  their  minds  on  a  common  definition, 
submitted  their  judgment,  withdrew  their  protests,  and 
admitted  the  crucial  terms  into  their  doctrinal  definition. 
It  is  impossible  not  to  feel  that  there  is  some  truth  in 
Harnack's  too  contemptuous  remarks  about  the  behaviour 
of  these  bishops.  The  deference  paid  to  Dioscorus,  the 
ecclesiastical  Pharaoh,  would  not  subside  at  once.  But 
that  they  had  a  genuine  admiration  for  Leo,  and  felt  the 
impossibility  of  contradicting  him,  where  he  made  any- 
thing a  sine  qua  non,  is  also  evident.  This  Harnack 
recognises,  but,  being  out  of  sympathy  with  orthodox 
faith,  regrets.  We  who  hold  the  Catholic  faith  may  well 
ask  where  it  would  have  been  but  for  Leo. 

In  their  corrected  formulary  ^  the  bishops  included 
the  Constantinopolitan  development  of  the  original 
Nicene  Creed,  which  we  now  call  the  Nicene  Creed 
simply,  just  as  the  Sardian  canons  were  always  called 
Nicene.  After  thus  combining  this  later  with  the 
earlier  form  of  the  Creed,  they  also  defend  the  Tome  of 
Leo  from  the  charge  of  innovation  brought  against  the 
Eutychians,  alleging  that  just  as  the  150  fathers  at 
Constantinople  published  their  decisions  concerning  the 
Holy  Spu'it,  not  as  if  anything  were  lacking  to  the 
original  Creed  of  Nicaea,  but  to  obviate  the  heretical 
teaching  of  those  who  endeavoured  to  repudiate  His 
*  lordship,'  ^  and  just  as  the  Council  received  the 
synodical  letters  of  Cyril  as  against  those  who  imagined 
that  a  mere  man  was  born  of  the  Virgin  Mary,  so  too 
they  combine  with  these  the  letter  of  Leo — written  to 
countervail  the  false  interpretation  of  Eutyches — as  in 
accordance  with  the  confession  of  blessed  Peter  and  as 

'  Mansi,  vii.  108-118.  -  SeairoTciav. 


288  COUNCIL   OF  CHALCEDON 

being  ^  a  kind  of  common  pillar  against  heretics.  They 
also  renewed  the  Ephesine  rule  against  making  any 
other  Symbol  than  the  Nicene,  having  made  it  quite 
clear,  as  against  Eutyches,  that  they  combined  with  this 
the  Constantinopolitan  additions.  They  did  not  insert 
the  term  '  Mother  of  God '  in  the  Creed,  nor  anything 
else,  that  they  might  not  even  appear  to  violate  their 
own  rule.  They  might  have  done  so,  for  their  authority 
w^as  equal  to  that  of  the  150  fathers  in  381,  but  they  pre- 
ferred to  give  no  handle  to  the  Eutychians. 

The  real  business  of  the  Council — that  which  dealt 
with  the  affairs  of  the  universal  Church  and  not  such  as 
were  purely  Eastern — was  now  concluded.  Accordingly 
the  Emperor  appeared  on  the  scene,  attended  by  the 
heads  of  the  various  departments  of  the  Court,  with 
military  escort  and  the  Senate  and  various  great 
patricians,  counts,  and  tribunes,  and  delivered  an  ad- 
dress in  the  Church  of  St.  Euphemia,  where  the  Council 
had  held  its  meetings.  One  passage  in  the  Imperial 
allocution  establishes  all  that  has  been  contended  for  in 
the  last  few  chapters,  viz.  that  the  Tome  of  Leo  was 
irreformable— in  other  words,  a  standard  of  the  faith 
before  the  Council  met.  His  Majesty  said  that  the 
original  idea  of  the  Council  was  that  '  presumptuousness 
should  be  crushed  on  the  part  of  those  who  dared  to 
think  or  defend  anything  different  concerning  the  birth  of 
Jesus  Christ  from  what  had  been  proclaimed  by  the  holy 
Apostles  and  handed  down  in  accordance  therewith  by 

'  vndpxova-av — implying  that  it  was  such  before  they  received  it.  Dr. 
Bright  imagines  that  to  *  combine '  Leo's  letter  with  these  others  was  to 
assert  a  superiority  over  it.  One  might  as  well  say  that  to  bind  up  two 
books  is  to  put  oneself  above  the  writer,  or  that  the  Church  placed  her- 
self above  the  Apostles  when  she  combined  the  Apocalypse  with  the  rest 
of  the  canon. 


THE   DEFINITION  289 

the  318  fathers  at  Nicaea,  in  the  same  ivay  as  also  the 
letter  sent  by  the  most  God-beloved  Leo,  the  Archbishop 
of  Imperial  Rome,  who  presides  over  the  Apostolic 
Throne,  to  Flavian  of  pious  memory.  Bishop  of  the  new 
Imperial  Rome,  signifies.' ' 

Clearly,  therefore,  the  Comicil  was  convened  not  to 
inquire  whether  the  Tome  of  Leo  was  accordant  with  the 
Creed  of  Nicaea,  but  to  bring  the  Eastern  bishops  into 
unity  on  the  basis  of  Leo's  teaching.  The  '  truth,' 
added  the  Emperor,  '  was  to  be  manifested  by  the  expo- 
sitions of  the  Council,-  but,  as  he  had  said  more  than  once, 
on  the  lines  laid  down  by  the  prelate  of  the  Apostolic 
See. 

The  Archdeacon  of  Constantinople  then  read  the 
'  definition  '  of  the  Synod.  And,  probably,  the  allocution 
was  also  read  which  is  found  in  Mansi's  collection  at  the 
end  of  the  Acts.^  It  is  an  important  document,  for  it 
defends  the  practice  of  adding  '  expositions '  to  the 
Nicene  Creed  against  the  charge  brought  against  it  by 
the  Nestorians  and  Eutychians,  that  it  was  the  introduc- 
tion of  a  new  principle.'  After  saying  that  the  Emperor 
was  acting  worthity  of  his  rule,  in  making  the  things  of 
God  his  first  care  and  in  beginning  by  gathering  his 
forces  against  the  devil,  they  at  once  proceed  with  this 
noteworthy  declaration :  '  Whence  God  has  provided  us 
with  an  invulnerable  champion  in  regard  to  error  ■'  and 

»  Mansi,  vii.  132,  133. 

-  ra7s  vfiwu  iKdeaeai.     Again  iKdeais  is  not  Creed,  but  exposition. 

'  Mansi,  vii.  455.     From  the  Synod  to  the  Emperor. 

*  KaivoTOfMia.  It  is  perhaps  worth  while  pointing  out  that  objections 
such  as  these  have  no  bearing  on  the  doctrine  of  Papal  infallibility. 
They  are  only  concerned  with  the  method  of  its  exercise.  And  the 
objection  was  advanced  by  heretics. 

*  Lit.  '  from  error  '  (tK  vKdyrfs)  =  to  bring  us  out  of  error. 

U 


290  COUNCIL  OF  CHALCEDON 

has  furnished  the  prelate  of  the  (Church)  of  the  Romans 
for  victory  by  girding  him  round  with  the  doctrines  of 
truth  on  every  side,*  in  order  that  contending,^  as  the 
fervent  Peter,  he  may  draw  every  mind  to  God.  But 
lest  anyone,  declinmg  to  agree  with  his  faith,^  and  wish- 
ing to  shield  himself  from  being  convicted  of  his  own 
private  deceit  [error]  should  misrepresent  his  letter  as  a 
composition  unknown  to  and  unallowed  by  the  canons, 
saying  that  it  is  not  lawful  to  make  any  exposition  ^  of 
faith  beyond  that  which  "vvas  made  b}^  the  fathers  at 
Nicsea  &c.' — they  enter  into  an  elaborate  proof  that  the 
Nicene  Creed  is  one  thing,  and  an  exposition  by  way  of 
interpretation  or  explanation  is  another,  giving  instances 
from  the  Fathers.  '  Let  them  not,  therefore,  produce  the 
letters  of  the  wonderful  prelate  of  Kome  as  open  to  the 
charge  of  novelty  {i.e.  on  technical  grounds,  as  though 
it  contravened  the  Ephesine  canon)  :  but  if  it  is  not  in 
accordance  with  the  Scriptures  let  them  confute  it '  '^ — 
that  is  to  say,  let  them  attempt  the  impossible :  they 
will  only  prove  themselves  heretics.  '  For  he  that,  out 
of  his  own  mind,  when  there  is  no  opponent,*^  with  his 

'  Lit.  *  from  all  sides.' 

2  fiaxofji^yos,  the  word  they  use  later  on  when  defending  the  proper 
occasion  for  issuing  an  '  exposition.' 

^  TTJs  iriaTeus  ahrov  ttju  bjudvoiav — i.e.  the  Tome.  ^  eKde(riv. 

^  Dr.  Bright  [Roman  See,  p.  191)  mentions  that  this  was  omitted  in 
the  first  edition  of  The  Primitive  Church  and  the  See  of  Peter,'  and 
accuses  me  in  consequence  of  '  slurring  over  a  critical  part  of  the  case,' 
incredible  as  it  may  seem  that  he  should  call  this  '  part  of  the  case.' 
Does  he  think  that  any  bishops  -considered  that  the  Tome  coidd  be 
shown  to  be  repugnant  to  Holy  Scripture  ?  They  had  publicly  declared 
the  contrary.  When  our  Lord  said '  If  I  have  spoken  evil,  bear  witness  of 
the  evil '  (St.  John  xviii.  23)  did  He  mean  that  they  could  prove  anything 
against  Him  ?  Is  not  such  a  mode  of  speech  often  used  as  a  defiance, 
or  as  a  strong  form  of  denial  ? 

*5  ixaxouevos,  as  they  have  already  said  that  Leo  was.     Cf.  line  3. 


THE   DEFINITION  291 

own  words  out  of  pure  ambition  [makes]  an  exposition,^ 
such  a  man  is  rightly  convicted  of  vainglory  :  but  he 
that  is  in  conflict  with  those  who  hold  wrong  opinions, 
&c.'  They  then  ask  the  Emperor  to  recognise  the  Pope's 
zeal  for  the  faith,  *  confirming  the  teaching  of  the  See 
of  Peter  as  [being]  a  seal  of  the  religious  dogmas,  b}^  the 
Synod  gathered  together  by  you.'  The  text  is  obviously 
corrupt,  but  we  can  hardly  go  wrong  in  interpreting  it  to 
mean  that  they  asked  the  Emperor  to  confirm  (by  making 
it  part  of  the  law  of  the  Empire)  the  definition  of  the 
Synod  which  was  the  teaching  of  the  See  of  Peter.  That 
is  what  he  actually  did.^ 

The  whole  of  this  part  of  the  Council's  action  is  thus 
summed  up  by  the  Archbishop  of  Constantinople  in  his 
report  to  Leo.  Nothing  can  exceed  the  importance  of 
this  declaration.  It  is  contained  in  a  single  sentence, 
which  leaves  no  possibility  of  mistake  as  to  the  position 
which  the  Tome  of  Leo  held  in  the  minds  of  the  orthodox 
bishops  and  the  Emperor.  '  Since,'  says  the  archbishop, 
'  after  the  judgment  passed  on  Dioscorus,  it  was  necessary 
(being  the  chief  reason  why  the  pious  Emperor  was 
eager  to  assemble  the  Synod)  that  the  understanding  of 
all  should  agree  to  the  utterance  of  your  orthodox  faith.'  ^ 
In  other  words,  the  Tome  of  Leo  was  from  the  first  the 
standard  of  faith  to  which  all  were  to  give  an  intelligent 
adhesion.     This  had  now  been  effected. 

And  now  the  scene  in  the  church  must  have  been 


'  iKQeaiu.  Again  this  word  cannot  mean  simply  a  Creed,  as  Dr. 
Bright  translates  it  elsewhere,  for  under  no  circumstances  could  a  single 
individual  draw  up  a  Creed  out  of  his  own  mind. 

-  Comp.  Mansi,  vii.  465  with  173. 

'  Lecyn.  Ep.  101  :  irrl  rhv  t^s  opQris  vfjLwv  iricTTeoos  \6yov  ttolvtuv 
(rvv(\6e'iv  ttjv  5i,dvoiav. 

V  2 


292  COUNCIL   OF   CHALCEDON 

striking  to  the  last  degree.  It  is  thus  described  in  the 
simplest  way  by  the  archbishop.  '  The  written  definition 
of  our  faith  in  accordance  with  your  holy  epistle  [i.e,  the 
Tome]  for  the  confirmation  of  that  of  our  fathers  '  (I  quote 
his  words)  drawn  up  '  under  the  protecting  shield  of  the 
holy  martyr  Euphemia '  was  solemnly  carried  in  the 
presence  of  the  Emperor  and  Empress  and  their  suite, 
and  the  whole  Synod  of  bishops,  with  the  Papal  legates, 
and  placed  on  the  altar — that,  as  the  Synod  afterwards 
said,  it  might  be  presented  by  St.  Euphemia  and  all  the 
angels  to  Almighty  God.  This  was  done  with  prayers 
and  psalms  of  thanksgiving  and  every  token  of  holy 
gladness.^  It  was  then  taken  from  the  altar  and  pre- 
sented to  their  Imperial  Majesties  to  be  laid  up  in  the 
archives,  and  to  remain — not  indeed  there,  for  it  was 
afterwards  burnt  by  heretics,  but  in  the  copies  taken — 
as  the  faith  of  the  Catholic  Church  until  the  day  of 
doom. 


Note  to  Page  264,  on  the  Word  '  Exposition  '  {^kOco-is). 

It  will  be  well  to  notice  here  Dr.  Bright's  exegesis  in  regard 
to  the  bishops'  exclamations  in  the  second  session  about  not 
making  another  '  exposition.'  He  first  inverts  the  order  of 
the  bishops'  exclamations  (Boman  See,  p.  185).  He  un- 
fortunately makes  them  in  the  first  instance  object  on  the 
ground  of  the  Ephesine  rule  against  compiling  another  Creed, 
whereas  this  comes  afterwards,  and  does  not  govern  the 
earlier  exclamations.  He  next  says  that  the  expositions 
made  '  by  the  fathers '  mean  '  the  Nicene  and  Constantino- 
politan  forms  of  the  Creed  to  which  the  Commissioners 
had  referred.'  But  the  Commissioners  had  also  referred  to 
the  *  expositions  '  of  the  '  rest  of  the  holy  and   illustrious 

'    uera  ff^ocrevx^s,  X°-P^^  ''"''  eixppoavvris  (ibid.). 


THE  DEFINITION  293 

fathers '  besides  those  of  Constantinople,  and  therefore  in 
speaking  of  '  the  fathers '  we  must  understand  them  to 
include  a  great  deal  more  than  those  of  325  and  381. 
Indeed,  on  the  same  page  further  on  Leo  is  included.  Then, 
out  of  order,  he  brings  in  the  speech  of  Cecropius,  about 
the  TvTTo?  of  Leo  having  dealt  with  the  Eutychian  matter, 
and  the  bishops'  exclamation,  '  We  all  say  this,'  and  he 
refers  'this,'  not  to  what  immediately  precedes,  viz.  Cecro- 
pius's  speech  about  Leo,  but  to  the  bishops'  previous  excla- 
mations !  Then  he  says  that  the  '  expositions  '  [i.e.  in  each 
case,  if  his  argument  is  to  hold  good]  *  mean  the  Creed '  and 
'  do  not  include  the  Tome.'  For  this  he  gives  two  reasons  : 
first,  that  the  Ephesine  rule  which  is  referred  to  as  an 
authority  would  not  have  excluded  any  addition  to  docu- 
ments like  the  Tome,  which  did  not  profess  to  be  a  Creed. 
But  (1)  the  objection  from  the  Ephesine  rule  is  introduced 
after  the  first  series  of  exclamations.  And  (2)  some  of  the 
bishops  seem  to  have  thought  that  that  rule  did  exclude 
additions  to  the  Nicene  faith  as  already  expounded  by  Leo. 
If  (as  they  had  all  professed  to  believe)  Leo's  Tome  contained 
a  true  interpretation  of  the  Nicene  Creed,  it  is  obvious  that 
they  could  not  add  to  it.  Just  as  St.  Gregory  said  that  any- 
one who  should  add  anything  to  the  Tome  must  be  considered 
a  heretic.  The  members  of  the  Synod  were  really  at  cross 
purposes.  Some  appear  to  have  thought  that  a  General 
Council  could  not  add  a  word  to  the  Creed  of  Nicaea  as 
developed  by  the  bishops  at  Constantinople  in  381 ;  others, 
that  a  General  Council  could  not  even  draw  up  an  exposition 
and  make  it  of  faith.  It  was  anyhow  not  needed,  they 
urged,  in  this  instance,  as  Leo's  Tome  satisfied  the  needs  of 
the  case.  It  was,  in  fact,  the  first  time  that  a  General 
Council  had  been  called  upon  to  frame  an  exposition  and 
launch  it  upon  the  world.  Hence  the  genuine  doubts  of 
some,  while  others  simply  wished  to  evade  giving  their 
judgment.  As  a  matter  of  fact  these  same  bishops  did, 
some  of  them,  propose  to  insert  the  word  &€ot6ko^  into  the 


294  COUNCIL  OF   CHALCEDON 

Creed ;  ^  and,  all  of  them,  eventually  consented  to  an  expo- 
sition being  drawn  up  in  the  shape  of  a  definition. 

Dr.Bright's  second  argument  is  that '  in  the  preceding  dis- 
cussion at  Ephesus,  *  exposition  '  had  been  repeatedly  used  as 
meaning '  Creed  '  (Boman  See,  p.  186,  note  2).  But  it  would  be 
more  true  to  say  that  the  '  exposition  of  the  318  Fathers  ' 
means,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  the  Creed  of  Nicsea,  not  because  it 
was  an  exposition,  but  because  it  was  their  exposition  (eK^co-i?). 
The  question  is  whether  the  '  expositions '  alluded  to  by  the 
bishops,  in  the  first  exclamations  recorded,  can  include  the 
Tome  of  Leo.  It  should  be  noticed  that  the  word  itself  is 
used  again  and  again  of  Flavian's  statement  of  his  belief  :  e.g. 
by  the  Imperial  Commissioners  (Mansi,  vi.  680),  by  the  Papal 
legate,  by  the  Bishop  of  Antioch  and  his  bishops  (ibid.  681), 
and  by  Athanasius  of  Busiris,  in  Egypt — good  samples  of  an 
oecumenical  use  of  the  word.  In  each  of  these  cases 
either  the  substantive  eK^eo-i?  is  used,  or  part  of  the  verb 
eKTiOyfjLL.  And  in  none  of  them  does  the  word  (e/c^co-is) 
'  exposition  '  mean  a  '  Creed.'  This,  therefore,  was  its  use  by 
the  members  of  the  Council  of  Chalcedon.  In  the  same 
Council  it  is  used  of  Cyril's  letters  (vi.  681)  and  of  the 
letters  of  Gregory,  Basil,  Hilary,  Athanasius,  and  Ambrose 
(vii.  8),  which  were  not  Creeds.  And  the  Egyptian  bishops 
were  said  to  '  expound '  their  faith,  who  certainly  did  not 
draw  up  a  Creed,  but  were  probably  at  the  bottom  of  the 
objections  raised  to  issuing  a  conciliar  *  exposition.'  Then 
the  bishops  in  this  very  session  were  called  upon  to  make  an 
'  exposition  '  (vi.  952),  and  most  assuredly  it  was  not  meant 
that  they  were  to  frame  a  Creed.  Indeed  the  Emperor 
described  the  very  object  of  the  Council  as  being  that  '  the 
truth  might  be  made  manifest  by  your  exjjositions '  (vii.  133  : 
Tj  dXyjOeca  rai?  v/xtov  eKOecrea-i  cfiavepova-Om),  and  nothing  can  be 
more  certain  than  that  he  did  not  mean  the  Council  to  draw 
up  a  Creed.  But  further,  Leo's  Tome  was  itself  actually 
called  an  '  exposition  '  in  the  fourth  session  (cK^eVcco?  rov  ^ta/c. 
'  Mansi,  vii.  104. 


THE   DEFINITION  295 

AcwTo?,  vii.  40),  and  at  the  fifth  session  the  bishops  cried 
out  with  one  voice  :  '  Leo  has  given  an  orthodox  exposition ' 
(AeW  opOoSo^oig  i^edero,  vii.  105),  and  the  Synod  decided  that 
no  one  was  to  go  beyond  the  Nicene  faith  as  interpreted  by 
Leo.  'This  faith  the  Synod  holds' — i.e.,  as  the  previous 
words  say,  the  true  faith  manifested  by  Leo.  '  And  the 
Synod  allows  nothing  further  to  be  added,  nor  anything  to 
be  diminished  from  it '  {lit.  '  suffers  to  add '  &c.,  vii.  9),  using 
the  very  expression  of  the  Ephesine  canon,  or  definition,  in 
regard  to  the  Nicene  faith  as  expanded  by  the  fathers  of 
381  and  interpreted  by  Cyril  and  Leo.  These  are  expositions 
which  are  interpretations,  and  the  bishops  here  accepted  the 
Tome,  before  any  discussion  or  examination,  as  an  exposition 
which  they  hoped  might  relieve  them  from  the  necessity  of 
making  one  themselves.  The  Ephesine  rule  forbade  the 
exposition  of '  another  Creed  '  or  '  Symbol,'  not  of  an  explana- 
tion or  interpretation.  Harnack  caustically  remarks  that 
the  bishops  at  Ohalcedon  deceived  themselves  by  drawing 
the  delusive  distinction  that  it  was  not  a  question  of  an  expo- 
sition (cK^eo-t?),  but  of  an  interpretation  {kpixyjveia)  {Hist,  of 
Dogina,  iv.  218).  But  the  antithesis  was  really  between 
crvfifSoXov  and  ipfxijveia.  Imagine  what  confusion  it  would 
make  to  call  the  '  Ecthesis  '  of  Heraclius  a  '  Creed.' 

The  interpretation  which  I  have  given  to  the  first  excla- 
mations of  the  bishops  concerning  the  sufficiency  of  the 
Nicene  Creed  because  of  the  existence  of  the  Tome,  and 
which  Dr.  Bright  (in  his  Waymarks,  p.  227)  stigmatises  as 
'  very  careless,'  was  given  in  the  words  of  Hefele.  Ballerini 
{Leon.  0pp.  ii.  507,  note  22),  Mansi  {hi  Nat.  Alex.  H.  E. 
ix.  522),  Muzzarelli  {De  Auctor.  Bom.  Pont.  ii.  90), 
Lupus  {App.  in  Cone.  Chalced.  p.  913),  Jungmann  {Diss. 
Eccl.  vol.  ii.  Diss.  x.  §  36),  and  even  Quesnel,  adopt  the  same 
interpretation.  Muzzarelli,  indeed,  understands  the  bishops' 
words  about '  the  canon  '  to  refer,  not  to  the  Ephesine  rule 
at  all,  but  to  the  general  rule  of  the  Church,  which  forbids 
things  once  defined  to  be  discussed  as  though  not  defined. 


296  COUNCIL  OF  CHALCEDON 

This  would  destroy  Dr.  Bright's  interpretation  root  and 
branch.  And  no  doubt  there  is  a  difficulty  about  the  bishops 
calling  the  Ephesine  rule  '  the  canon,'  since  the  term  had 
been  expressly  refused  to  it  in  the  first  session.  On  the 
whole,  however,  I  have  preferred  the  interpretation  of  the 
Ballerini,  Lupus,  Mansi  and  Hefele.  I  think  it  will  anyhow 
be  admitted  by  anyone  really  acquainted  with  the  subject 
that  '  carelessness '  is  hardly  the  term  to  apply  to  these  great 
and  profound  students. 


CHAPTEK  VI 

THE    RESTOKATION    OF    THEODORET 

Before  leaving  the  Synod,  the  Emperor  had  asked  the 
bishops  to  make  three  authoritative  regulations  (tvttovs) 
concerning  monks  and  clerics,  and  had  finally  given 
them  leave  to  moot  anything  they  pleased  during  the 
next  three  or  four  days,  after  which  they  were  free  to 
return  to  their  respective  sees.^  Thus  the  business  of 
the  Council  qua  (Ecumenical  was  concluded.  Con- 
sequently, as  Pope  Pelagius  II.  notes,  several  Greek 
manuscripts  contain  only  six  *  Acts'  of  the  Council,  ending 
with  the  session  at  which  Marcian  and  Pulcheria  were 
present.^  The  remaining  sessions  were  occupied  with 
matters  that  concerned  the  East  alone,  and  which  were 
not  included  in  the  programme  as  described  by  Leo. 
Of  the  bishops,  several,  such  as  Juvenal,  Thalassius, 
Eustathius  and  Eusebius  of  Ancyra  had  been  pardoned 
their  weakness  in  the  Eobber- Synod ;  Dioscorus  had 
been  deposed  ;  and  the  Synod  had  expounded  its  faith 
in  strict  accordance  with  the  Tome  of  Leo. 

But  several  matters  concerning  Eastern  bishoprics 
called  for  adjustment ;  and  first,  among  these,  the 
quarrel  that  had  long  subsisted  between  the  Bishops  of 

'  Mansi,  vii.  177. 

-  E2?.  ad  ntr.,  and  so  St.  Gregory,  Lib.  7,  Indict.  2,  Ex>.  53.     Cf. 
Baluze  in  Mansi,  vii.  668. 


298  THE   EESTORATION   OF 

Antiocli  and  Jerusalem  as  to  the  area  of  their  respective 
jurisdictions.  A  settlement  was  now  effected,  Antioch 
taking  over  the  two  provinces  of  Phoenicia  and  that  of 
Arabia,  and  Jerusalem  occupying  the  three  Palestines. 
The  Papal  legates  consented,  and  then  all  the  bishops.^ 

And  now  at  length  the  pent-up  eagerness  of  the  small 
knot  of  bishops  from  Egypt,  Illyria  and  Palestine,  who 
had  raised  such  a  clamour  against  Theodoret  in  the  first 
session,  was  allowed  a  vent.  Their  annoyance  at  his 
having  been  allowed  to  sit  in  the  Council  as  a  bishop  must 
have  been  intense ;  but  they  had  been  promised  satis- 
faction in  due  course  of  time.^  Theodoret  (as  has  been 
already  noticed)  had  been  an  avowed  opponent  of  their 
great  Cyril,  until  John  of  Antioch  made  his  peace  with 
Alexandria.  He  had  then  held  communion  with  Antioch, 
and  so,  mediately,  with  Cyril.  He  had  next  avowed  the 
perfect  orthodoxy  of  Cyril's  letter  of  pacification  to  John 
of  Antioch,  and  had  eventually  spoken  well  of  Cyril  him- 
self.-^ His  supposed  letter  to  John  of  Antioch  on  Cyril's 
death,  a  most  brutal  composition,  calumniating  the 
Saint  in  the  most  savage  language,  is  undoubtedly  a 
forgery,  if  for  no  other  reason,  at  least  from  the  fact  that 
John  of  Antioch  died  before  Cyril,  and  Theodoret  must 
have  known  of  his  own  Patriarch's  death.  But  on  the 
other  hand,  Theodoret  had  never  admitted  the  orthodoxy 
of  Cyril's  letter  to  Nestorius,  to  which  were  appended  the 
celebrated  twelve  Anathematisms,  and  he  had  persistently 
maintained  that,  although  the  teaching  attributed  to 
Nestorius  was  certainly  heresy,  still  the  deposition  of 

'  Mansi,  vii.  181.  '^  Ibid.  vi.  590,  and  cf.  supra,  p.  226. 

^  These  particulars  were  unknown  till  the  discovery  of  the  Synodicon 
adv.  tragcediam  Irencsi  by  Lupus,  which  was  inserted  by  Baluze  in  his 
Supplement  to  the  Council,  and  has  thence  passed  into  the  later 
collections  of  documents  relating  to  the  Councils. 


THEODORET  299 

Nestorius  was  undeserved.  At  the  time,  however,  of 
the  Council  of  Chalcedon  there  is  no  question  but  that,  in 
spite  of  this,  he  was  perfectly  orthodox.  He  had  avowed 
his  belief  that  Leo  and  Cyril  were  in  agreement,  and  had 
signed  the  Tome  of  Leo. 

Leo  had  passed  judgment  as  to  his  orthodoxy  on  his 
appeal  to  the  Holy  See,  and  had  quickly  sent  to  the 
Papal  legates  to  tell  them  that  Theodoret  was  to  be 
restored  to  his  see — the  restoration  presumably  to  be 
actually  effected  by  a  decree  of  the  Synod.  There  was 
no  time  to  do  more  ;  and  indeed  more  was  not  needed, 
for  Leo  had  already  commissioned  the  bishops  to  restore 
to  their  office  by  synodical  decree  those  who  had  been 
unjustly  condemned,^  and  Theodoret  would  now  come 
under  this  head.  Judging  from  Leo's  practice,  as 
instanced  by  his  treatment  of  Anatolius,  we  may  feel 
sure  that  had  there  been  no  Council  about  to  sit 
Theodoret  would  have  been  expressly  required  to  anathe- 
matise both  Nestorius  and  Eutyches  by  letter.  Unfortu- 
nately, w^e  do  not  possess  Leo's  letter  of  directions  to  his 
legates.  We  only  know  that  they  were  able  to  say  at 
the  Council  that  Theodoret  had  been  restored  by  Leo, 
and  accepted  by  the  Emperor — subject,  as  a  matte?'  of 
course,  to  the  usual  conditions  of  such  restoration  when 
a  General  Council  was  sitting.  Accordingly,  on  the 
ground  of  Leo's  judgment,  to  which  the  civil  sanction 
of  the  Emperor  had  been  given,  the  Commissioners  had 
insisted  on  his  being  allowed  to  take  his  seat  in  the 
Council  as  a  bishop,  with  the  right  to  act  as  an  accuser 
but  without  prejudice  to  the  proposed  action  of  the 
Egyptians  and  their  allies.  This,  however,  was  deferred 
until  the  matter  of  faith  had  been  settled. 

'  Ex).  93,  3. 


300  THE   RESTORATION  OF 

Accordingly,  the  faction  of  Dioscorus,  as  those  bishops 
had  shown  themselves  to  be  in  the  opening  of  the 
Council,^  now  cried  out  that  the  time  had  come  for 
Theodoret  to  anathematise  Nestorius.^  That  was  what 
he  had  always  refused  to  do,  although  ready  enough  to 
anathematise  his  heresy.  But  this  was  what  these  few 
bishops  were  determined  that  he  should  now  be  made  to 
do.  Nothing  would  satisfy  them  but  to  hear  the  hated 
name  of  Nestorius  from  his  lips  after  all  he  had  said 
against  their  quondam  patriarch,  St.  Cyril.  And 
Theodoret  had  richly  deserved  to  be  called  upon  to  do 
this.  But  what  he  did  was  to  pass  to  the  middle  and 
ask  to  read  his  letters  to  Leo  and  to  the  Emperor  to 
show  his  orthodoxy.  But  there  was  no  idea  of  reviewing 
the  judgment  of  Leo.  All  that  was  required  of  him  was 
that  he  should  anathematise  Nestorius  by  name. 

And  they  were  in  fact  within  their  rights.  For  indeed 
any  orthodox  bishop  might  be  called  upon  to  do  the  same 
if  the  slightest  suspicions  rested  on  him,  although  it  must 
be  admitted  that  the  demand  came  with  an  ill  grace  from 
those  who  had  originally  maintained  that  it  was  enough 
to  sign  the  Nicene  Creed.  But  the  Commissioners  up- 
held these  bishops'  demands,  and  the  Papal  legates  stood 
by  as  consenting  parties.  His  willingness  to  anathema- 
tise Nestorius  was  really  involved  in  his  restoration  by 
Leo.  There  could  be  no  question  but  that  Leo  would 
himself  have  approved  of  the  demand  being  complied 

'  That  it  was  these  and  not  the  whole  Synod  is  certain  both  from 
the  first  session  and  from  the  expression  here  later  on  when  '  all  the 
bishops  '  (Mansi,  vii.  189)  are  mentioned  as  exclaiming  that  '  Leo  had 
judged  with  God ' — i.e.,  as  '  with  '  always  means  in  such  a  context, '  under 
the  protecting  guidance  of  Almighty  God.'  Cf.  '  I  am  with  you  all  days  ' 
(Matt,  xxviii). 

-  Mansi,  vii.  188. 


THEODORET  301 

with,  as  indeed  he  afterwards  said  expressly  in  a  letter 
to  Theodoret  himself,  whom  he  congratulated  on  coming 
well  out  of  the  trial.  It  was  not  in  the  least  allowing 
Leo's  judgment  to  be  reviewed  on  the  part  of  the  Synod, 
as  though  that  judgment  were  inadequate  in  view  of  the 
evidence  presented,  for  they  expressly  refused  to  review 
that  evidence.  They  would  not  have  his  letter  read.  It 
was  merely  a  question  of  satisfying  this  knot  of  bishops 
as  to  whether  Theodoret  would  do  what  one  absolved  by 
the  Holy  See  must  be  ready  to  do  at  any  moment,  if  called 
upon  by  a  Council.  It  was  not  a  question  of  the  infalli- 
bility of  the  Holy  See,  but  of  the  sincerity  of  Theodoret. 
Long  years  afterwards  the  successors  of  these  people 
maintained  (quite  absurdly)  that  Theodoret  was 
insincere. 

Besides,  all  the  bishops  (on  the  principles  of  the 
Vatican  decree)  had  a  right  as  bishops  in  a  General 
Council  to  exercise  their  judgment  on  such  a  case  when 
brought  before  them.  Had  they  found  that  Theodoret 
had  been  deceiving  Leo,  about  which,  however,  there 
could  hardly  be  any  real  question  after  his  conduct  in 
the  Council,  the  matter  would,  on  those  principles,  have 
been  referred  back  to  Eome.  But,  as  it  was,  this  difficulty 
did  not  arise.  Leo  proved  to  be  right ;  and  these 
Egyptian  bishops  were  wrong.  The  case,  then,  stands 
thus  :  Theodoret  had  appealed  to  Leo  as  the  occupant  of 
the  Apostolic  See  '  to  heal  the  wounds  of  the  Church  '  by 
reason  of  his  position  as  '  Primate  in  all  things  ' ;  ^  and 
Leo  had  already  told  the  Synod  that  it  was  to  '  apply 
the  medicine  of  justice  to  the  wounds  '  of  the  Churches, 

'  Lit.  '  that  we  may  receive  from  you  a  remedy  for  the  wounds  of 
the  Church.  For  the  Primacy  in  all  things  fitly  belongs  to  you  '  (Leon. 
Ep.  52,  §  1). 


302  THE   RESTORATION   OF 

whose  bishops  had  been  driven  from  their  sees,  and 
transported,  others  being  placed  in  their  stead ;  and  that 
no  one  was  to  lose  his  proper  honour,  '  if  all,  as  we 
desire,  relinquish  their  error.'  ^  Clearly,  therefore,  the 
Synod  had  an  office  to  fulfil  in  the  case  of  all  the  bishops 
who  had  gone  astray  ;  the  only  difference  in  the  case  of 
Theodoret  being  that  his  right  to  his  bishopric  was 
already  established  by  the  judgment  of  the  Apostolic 
See,  so  far  as  it  was  possible  for  it  to  judge.  What 
that  judgment  decided  was  that  the  man  who  wrote  as 
Theodoret  did  to  Eome,  expounding  his  faith  as  he  did, 
merited  restoration  to  his  see.  But  obviously  if  any- 
one could  show  that  the  writer  was  not  sincere,  the 
judgment  would  fall  to  the  ground.  Infallibility  does 
not  confer  the  power  of  reading  the  heart  of  man.  So 
that  the  execution  of  Leo's  judgment  was,  as  a  matte^ 
of  course,  contingent  upon  the  sincerity  of  the  writer, 
and  subject  to  his  satisfying  the  Synod,  if  required  to 
do  so,  that  he  had  placed  his  case  fully  before  the  Holy 
See.  The  test  of  this  was  his  anathematising  Nestorius 
— at  least  in  the  opinion  of  the  Egyptian  party.  And 
there  was  no  reason  why  the  Synod  should  repudiate 
the  test.  It  was  not  reopening  the  question  of  the  cor- 
rectness of  the  decision  in  regard  to  the  evidence 
adduced. 

Theodoret,  then,  being  called  upon  by  these  bishops  to 
anathematise  Nestorius,  and  probably  resenting  the  test, 
wished  that  he  should  be  allowed  to  give  an  exposition 
of  his  faith. 2  But  he  was  roughly  interrupted  in  the 
middle  of  his  sentence  and  told  that  he  was  still  a 
Nestorian,  which,  of  course,  was  wholly  false.  Theodoret, 
seeing  that  nothing  would  satisfy  his  interrogators  but 

'  Leon.  Ejp.  93,  §  3.  -  iKQw/xai  uirws  iricmva). 


THEODORET  308 

the  words  for  which  they  clamoured,  at  once  said : 
'  Anathema  to  Nestorius  and  to  him  who  does  not 
say  that  the  holy  Virgin  Mary  is  Mother  of  God,  and  to 
him  who  divides  tlie  Only -begotten  Son  into  two  sons. 
Moreover,  I  have  signed  the  definition  of  faith  and  the 
Epistle  of  the  most  holy  archbishop  Leo ;  and  thus  I 
think  :  and  now  after  all  this,  Farewell.'  The  Commis- 
sioners at  once  stopped  further  proceedings,  and  said 
that  all  doubt  about  Theodoret  was  removed,  giving 
their  reasons  thus  :  '  (1)  he  has  anathematised  Nestorius 
in  our  hearing  and  (2)  has  been  received  by  Leo  ;  and 
he  has  (1)  willingly  accepted  the  definition  of  faith  given 
by  your  Keverence  [i.e.  the  Synod]  and  (2)  moreover 
has  subscribed  to  the  Epistle  of  Leo.  It  remains, 
therefore,  that  a  decree  should  be  issued  by  yourselves, 
so  that  he  may  receive  his  Church  back  again, 
according  as  Leo  decided.' 

x\nd  now  the  whole  body  of  the  bishops  ^  who  had 
witnessed  this  baiting  of  the  great  Bishop  of  Cyrrhos 
joined  in  exclaiming :  '  Theodoret  worthy  of  the  see. 
The  orthodox  to  his  see.  .  .  .  Long  live  Archbishop 
Leo.  Leo  decided  with  God  ...  let  his  Church  be 
given  back  to  Theodoret  the  bishop.' 

Now  unless  the  judgment  of  Leo  as  Primate  of  the 
Church  was  a  determining  factor  in  the  restoration  of 
Theodoret,  what  need  to  bring  in  his  name  at  every 
turn  ?  It  was  not  enough,  in  the  opinion  of  the  Com- 
missioners, to  say  that  Theodoret  was  restored  because 
he  had  anathematised  Nestorius  ;  they  must  needs  add 
that  he  had  been  received  by  Leo.  It  was  not  enough 
to  say  that  he  had  signed  the  synodical  definition  of 
faith  ;  they  must  needs  add  that  he  had  subscribed  the 

'  Mansi,  vii.  189. 


304  THE   RESTORATION   OF 

letter  of  Leo.  It  was  not  enough  to  say  that  a  decree 
for  his  restoration  must  be  issued  by  the  Synod  ;  they 
must  needs  add  that  this  restoration  was  in  accordance 
with  the  decision  of  Leo.  What  could  this  mean  but 
that  the  judgment  of  the  Apostolic  See  had  a  juridical 
value  in  the  case  even  of  a  Greek  bishop  ? 

And  now  the  sentence  of  the  Synod  was  delivered  by 
the  Papal  legates.  They  did  not  simply  '  give  a  vote,' ' 
they  delivered  the  sentence  of  the  whole  Synod.  They 
said :  '  The  most  holy  and  blessed  bisJiojJ  of  the  ivhole 
Church,  Leo,  [bishop]  of  the  city  of  Rome,  has  already 
received  the  most  holy  and  venerable  Bishop  Theodoret 
into  communion,  as  the  letter  sent  to  our  lowliness 
[=our  humble  selves]  bears  witness.  Since,  therefore, 
he  has  shown  [that  he  holds]  the  Catholic  faith  according 
to  his  promise,  and  according  to  the  aforementioned 
Bishop  he  has  sent  his  subscription  [to  the  Tome]  in  his 
own  document  and  in  that  sent  to  us  ;  since  also  he  has 
anathematised  both  Nestorius  and  Eutyches  not  only  in 
writing,  but  with  his  own  lips  in  presence  of  the  whole 
assembly,  the  most  holy  and  venerable  Synod,  as  well 
as  our  lowliness,  has  decided  by  this  decree  that  his 
Church  be  given  back  to  him.'  Thus  St.  Leo  through 
his  legates  and  the  Synod  decreed  the  actual  restoration 
of  Theodoret,  who  had  already  been  restored  by  him 
de  jure,  his  actual  restoration  by  the  decree  of  the 
Synod  following  immediately  upon  his  anathematising 
Nestorius,  just  as  Anatolius  had  been  ordered  by  the 
Holy  See  to  anathematise  Eutyches  as  well  as  to  sub- 
scribe to  the  Tome. 

'  I  do  not  know  how  Dr.  Bright  defends  his  positive  assertion  that 
'  the  legates  did  not  give  the  decision,  but  simply  took  the  lead  in  giving 
a  vote'  {Roman  See,  p.  194).  The  minutes  are  explicit  that  the  legates 
did  give  the  decision  (Mansi,  vii.  192). 


THEODORET  305 

Six  bishops  then  recorded  their  assent  to  the  sentence 
pronounced  in  their  name  by  the  Papal  legates,  and  it  is 
interesting  to  notice  the  selection.  Anatolius,  the  suc- 
cessor of  St.  Flavian,  and  the  quondam  friend  of  Dios- 
corus  who  had  deposed  Theodoret,  led  the  way,  men- 
tioning the  fact  that  the  latter  had  anathematised 
Nestorius,  but  saying  first  that  he  had  been  shown  to 
be  orthodox  '  for  all  reasons  '  (including,  of  course,  the 
supreme  reason — viz.  Leo's  judgment,  given  by  the 
Papal  legates  in  the  name  of  the  Synod),  '  and  from  the 
fact  that  he  had  anathematised  Nestorius  and  Eutyches.' 
Thus  Leo's  judgment  was,  according  to  Anatolius,  the 
first  factor  in  the  process  of  restoration.  Next,  his 
patriarch,  Maximus,  deposed  that  he  had  '  known  long 
ago  and  from  the  first  that  Theodoret  was  orthodox, 
when  he  heard  [lit.  hearing]  his  doctrine  concerning  the 
most  holy  Church,'  probably  in  allusion  to  Theodoret's 
stay  in  Antioch  before  Maximus  was  bishop,  which  gave 
rise  to  the  accusations  originally  brought  against  him 
by  Dioscorus.^  '  And  now  much  more  have  I  welcomed 
his  Holiness  since  he  has  now  anathematised  Nestorius 
and  Eutyches  and  agrees  with  the  definition  put  forth  ^ 
by  this  holy  Synod.  Whence  I  judge  that  he  is  properly 
Bishop  of  the  city  of  Cyrus.'  He  thus  gave  his  assent 
to  the  sentence  delivered  by  the  Papal  legates.  It  is 
hopeless  to  argue  with  people  w^ho  think  that  because 
Maximus  does  not  repeat  the  words  of  the  legates,  he 
has  different  rather  than  additional  reasons  for  agreeing 
to  the  decision  about  Theodoret.  He  merely  adds  his 
own  personal  witness,  and  lays  stress,  as  he  would 
necessarily  do,  on  the  latest  proof  of  his  orthodoxy,  to 
show  that  Leo  was  right,  not  merely  on  the  matter  of 

*  Cf.  supra,  p.  126.  -  '6qov  rhv  e/cTe0eWa  (Mansi,  vii.  192). 

X 


306  THE   RESTORA.TION   OF 

faith,  but  in  his  judgment  on  the  individual,  and  that 
the  Synod  was  right  in  delivering  over  his  see  to  the 
bishop  on  whose  letter  Leo  had  pronounced  judgment. 
It  was  an  intelligent  adhesion  to  that  judgment. 

Juvenal  was  the  next  to  adhere  to  the  synodical 
(jecree— the  bishop  who  had  so  tamely  yielded  to  pressure 
from  Dioscorus  in  the  Bobber- Synod,  when  Theodoret 
was  calumniated  and  deposed.  He  endorsed  the  words 
of  Anatolius,  which  referred  to  Leo's  judgment  as  well 
as  to  the  anathematisation  of  Nestorius. 

He  was  followed  by  his  companion  dupes  at  the 
Latrocinium,  Thalassius,  and  Eusebius  of  Ancyra,  each 
of  these  merely  expressing  their  assent  to  what  Anatolius 
and  the  other  fathers  had  decided.  Lastly,  came  a 
bishop  from  the  neighbourhood  of  Theodoret's  see,  Con- 
stantine,  whose  own  see  lay  in  Arabia. 

The  rest  of  the  bishops  having  then  assented  by 
acclamation,  the  Commissioners  declared  Theodoret  re- 
stored to  his  see  by  the  decree  of  the  Synod. 

I  have  given  this  scene  at  great  length  because  so 
much  turns  on  it  in  the  view  of  certain  English  writers. 
It  will  be  well  now  to  notice  one  or  two  points  of 
interest  in  this  judicial  act  of  the  Synod. 

The  legates  in  delivering  the  sentence  of  the  Synod 
speak  of  the  Bishop  of  Eome  as  the  Bishop  of  *  the  whole 
Church,'  and  the  Synod  listens  and  adheres  to  the 
sentence.  Clearly,  therefore,  Leo's  judgment  on  Theodoret 
had  a  value  which  none  other  could  have.  The  *  whole 
Church '  cannot  be  above  its  own  bishop. 

The  rule  of  the  Pope  over  the  whole  Church  is  not,  on 
Vatican  principles,  a  despotic  sway.  The  Episcopate  has 
a  real  office  of  judgment,  though  in  subordination  to  his. 

The  test  imposed  on  Theodoret  at  the  instance  of  the 


THEODORET  307 

impetuous  theologians  of  Egypt,  Palestine  and  Illyria, 
few  in  number  as  compared  with  the  great  throng  of 
bishops,  was  not  one  which  St.  Leo  had  forbidden,  nor 
one  of  which  anyone  could  suppose  he  would  disapprove. 
A  response  to  it  was  involved  in  the  very  idea  of  restora- 
tion. 

The  Synod  had  distinct  orders  from  Leo  to  enter  into 
the  case  of  the  bishops  deposed  at  the  Latrocinium,  of 
whom  Theodoret  was  one.  The  actual  handing  over  of 
his  see,  therefore,  naturally  lay  with  them. 

The  legates  and  Commissioners  insisted  on  Theodoret 
being  allowed  to  exercise  some  of  the  rights  of  a  bishop 
in  spite  of  protest,  and  that  purely  on  the  ground  that 
he  had  been  restored  by  Leo  and  consequently  (for  this 
we  may  certainly  assume)  accepted  by  the  Emperor. 

The  decree  of  the  Synod  was  avowedly  based,  not 
merely  on  Theodoret's  compliance  with  the  demand  to 
anathematise  Nestorius,  but  also  on  the  judgment  passed 
by  the  Bishop  of  Eome  on  this  Oriental  bishop,  of  the 
patriarchate  of  Antioch. 

The  Synod  did  not  review  the  evidence  on  which 
Leo's  judgment  was  based.  They  refused  to  do  that,  for 
whatever  reason.  But  in  so  doing  they  deprived  contro- 
versial writers  of  any  right  to  talk  of  the  synodical 
decree  on  Theodoret  as  though  it  were  a  case  of  review- 
ing Leo's  decision. 

Our  conclusion  is  that  there  is  nothing  in  the  history 
of  Theodoret's  restoration  to  prejudice  the  doctrine  of 
Papal  supremacy,  if  that  doctrine  be  understood  accord- 
ing to  the  Vatican  decrees,  and  not  as  teaching  that  the 
See  of  Peter  has  absolute  sway,  or  is  bound  to  govern  as 
a  despot.  One  alone  has  absolute  authority.  The  Vicar 
of  Him  who  alone  absolutely  rules  the  Church  is  supreme 

X  2 


308  THE   RESTORATION   OF 

in  jurisdiction  over  the  whole  Church,  but  is  under  Him 
and  must  act  in  harmony  with  the  laws  which  He  has 
laid  down,  which  include  a  real,  though  subordinate, 
authority  in  the  Episcopate  at  large. 


Note  on  the  Restoration  of  Theodoret. 

The  foregoing  pages  will  have  shown  how  far  there  is  any 
truth  in  the  objections  drawai  by  Dr.  Bright  from  the  history 
of  Theodoret  against  the  Vatican  decrees  [Boman  See,  p.  193- 
195,  and  Waymarks,  p.  231). 

He  says  that  the  judgment  of  Leo  '  on  Vaticanist  principles, 
should  have  been  amply  sufficient  to  place  him,  as  a  matter 
of  course,  among  the  constituent  members  of  the  Council  of 
Chalcedon.'  So  it  should.  And  so  it  did  with  all  but  a  tiny 
section  who  sympathised  with  Dioscorus.  For  it  was  ruled 
that  he  was  to  be  a  constituent  member  of  the  Council,  and 
his  name  was  entered  as  such  in  the  Greek  lists  of  bishops 
at  the  second  session  (Mansi,  vi.  944),  and  at  the  end  of  the 
fourth  '  Act '  he  exercised  the  supreme  function  of  the 
Episcopate  in  declaring  the  faith  along  with  the  rest  of  the 
bishops.  If  he  was  made  to  sit  in  the  middle,  this  was  not 
because  he  was  not  a  constituent  member  of  the  Council,  but 
because,  being  such,  he  was  about  to  act  as  an  accuser  of 
Dioscorus,  just  as  Eusebius  of  Dorylaeum,  whose  right  to 
the  rank  of  Bishop  was  unquestioned,  took  his  seat  also  in 
the  middle.  *  He  could  only  take  his  seat  in  the  midst  as 
a  competent  accuser  capable  also  of  being  accused,'  says  Dr. 
Bright.  But  to  accept  him  as  *  a  competent  accuser '  at  all 
was  virtually  accepting  him  as  a  constituent  member  of  the 
Council.  For  no  one  not  in  communion  with  the  Church 
could  be  accepted  as  a  competent  accuser,  according  to  the 
Eastern  regulation  drawn  up  at  Constantinople  in  382  and 
called  the  7th  canon  of  the  (Ecumenical  Council.  The 
Council  expressly  distinguished  later   on-  (Mansi,  vi.  645) 


THEODORET  309 

between  the  reason  for  Dioscorus  sitting  in  the  middle  and 
Theodoret  doing  so.  In  the  latter  case  it  was,  as  an  '  accuser.' 
Dr.  Bright  reiterates  the  fact  that  Theodoret  was  '  liable  to  be 
accused.'  In  the  passage  to  which  he  refers,  the  word '  accused ' 
is  a  misreading.  All  that  the  bishops  decided  was  that  the 
Egyptians  should  be  allowed  to  '  have  it  out '  with  Theodoret 
afterwards.  This  did  not  put  him  in  the  condition  of  one 
actually  accused.  To  say  *  liable  to  be  accused '  is  very 
vague. 

'  He  did  not  vote  except  on  such  business  as  was  con- 
nected with  his  own  justification,  i.e.  as  was  properly  doc- 
trinal '  {ibid.).  But  this  exception  is  fatal  to  Dr.  Bright's 
contention.  And  if  it  were  not,  it  would  be  fatal  to  his  other 
contention  that  the  Synod  in  the  fourth  '  Act '  was  a  court 
superior  to  the  Apostolic  See.  Theodoret  formed  part  of 
that  supposed  '  superior  '  court.     He  signed  with  the  rest. 

Then  as  to  pronouncing  anathema  against  Nestorius. 
'  Then,  and  not  till  then,  the  Council  professed  itself  satisfied  ' 
(Waymarks,  p.  231).  *  The  fact  remains  that  the  bishops 
vehemently  and  persistently  imposed  on  him  a  test  which 
Leo  had  not  imposed  '  (Roman  See,  p.  194).  True,  not  (so  far 
as  we  know)  explicitly,  but  that  is  all  that  could  be  said ;  and 
the  '  test '  was  not  to  see  if  Leo's  judgment  on  the  evidence 
submitted  to  him  in  Theodoret's  letter  was  correct,  but 
whether  he  had  properly  placed  his  case  before  Leo.  It  was 
not,  as  Dr.  Bright's  account  implies,  the  bishops  in  general 
who  were  *  vehement '  and  '  persistent.'  But  no  one  would 
refuse  to  insist  on  Theodoret's  answering,  when  thus  chal- 
lenged. 

'  He  was  not  pronounced  "  worthy  of  his  see  "  until  he 
submitted  '  to  the  test  imposed  {ibid.).  Yes,  he  was  dis- 
tinctly totidem  verbis  pronounced  '  worthy  of  his  see  '  in  the 
first  session,  by  all  but  a  tiny  knot  of  sympathisers  with 
Dioscorus.  The  concession  made  to  these  few  turbulent 
bishops  was,  not  that  Leo's  judgment  should  be  reviewed, 
but  that  the  case  (Aoyo?)  between  these  bishops  and  Theo- 


310  THE  RESTORATION   OF 

doret  should  be  allowed  to  come  on  afterwards,  and  yet 
Theodoret  was  not  to  rank  as  an  accused  person,  but  as  a 
competent  accuser.  The  distinction  (as  already  noticed) 
drawn  between  him  and  Dioscorus  was  notable.  He  sat 
with  the  orthodox  Eusebius  of  Dorylaeum.  The  concession 
was  made,  not  because  the  Synod  itself  had  thought  it 
necessary  to  enter  upon  the  case,  but  by  reason  of  the 
clamour  of  the  aforementioned  bishops. 

'  The  legates  did  not  give  the  decision,  but  simply  took 
the  lead  in  giving  a  vote  '  {ibid.).  We  have  seen  that  this  is 
not  correct. 

'  Six  bishops  followed,  of  whom  five  made  no  allusion 
referring  to  Leo's  action,  while  a  sixth  seems  to  include  him 
among  "  archbishops  "  '  (ibid.). 

There  was  no  need  to  make  any  such  allusion.  They 
were  only  expressing  their  adhesion  to  the  decision  of  the 
Synod  pronounced  by  the  legates.  The  only  point  of  im- 
portance was  to  say  that  Theodoret,  having  anathematised 
Nestorius,  was  to  take  possession  of  his  see.  Leo's  judg- 
ment took  effect  thereupon.  He  ivas  an  archbishop.  No 
one  denies  that. 

But,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  Anatolius  alluded  to  '  Leo's 
action,'  and  Juvenal  said  he  agreed  with  Anatolius,  and 
the  next  bishop,  Thalassius,  agreed  with  'the  most  holy 
fathers,'  who  included  Anatolius  and  Juvenal,  and  Euse- 
bius of  Ancyra  did  the  same,  and  Constantino  simply 
expressed  agreement  with  what  had  been  decreed.  And 
Maximus,  as  Theodoret's  patriarch,  naturally  added  his 
personal  witness.  Thus  there  is  nothing  ad  rem  in  this  remark 
of  Dr.  Bright' s.  The  same  may  be  said  of  his  quotation  of 
the  words  that  Theodoret  '  should  regain  the  Church  of 
Cyrrhos,  according  to  the  judgment  of  the  Council.'  This  is 
a  mere  matter  of  fact,  but  the  question  is  whether  tlie  judg- 
ment of  the  Council  involved  a  *  review  '  of  Leo's  judgment, 
or  was  simply  its  execution  when  Theodoret  had  shown  that 
he  had  not  played  false  with  Leo. 


THEODOEET  311 

*  The  legates  themselves  were  fain  to  recognise  its  [the 
Council's]  decision  as  superadded  to  what  their  master  had 
long  before  pronounced '  {Waymarks,  p.  231).  But  in  what 
sense  *  superadded'  ?  As  necessary  to  its  completeness,  or 
because  the  Egyptians  insisted  that  Theodoret  was  not  what 
Leo  thought  him  to  be  ?  And,  again,  what  was  Leo's  judg- 
ment so  far  as  it  can  he  brought  within  the  scope  of  his  pre- 
rogative of  infallihility  ?  It  was  simply  that  the  letter  w^hich 
Theodoret  wrote  to  him  contained  the  true  faith.  This  was 
never  denied,  never  reviewed.  The  letter  was  not  even 
read.  It  is  therefore  futile  to  quote  the  Vatican  decree  and 
ask,  *  On  this  showing,  how  can  the  Fourth  CEcumenical 
Council  be  acquitted  of  disloyal  encroachment  on  the  sove- 
reign rights  of  the  Church's  visible  head? '  {Wayraarks,  p.  232). 
We  must  not  stretch  those  '  sovereign  rights '  to  mean  what 
the  context  in  the  Vatican  decree  shows  they  do  not  include 
and  then  place  them  in  the  presence  of  past  history. 

It  cannot,  however,  be  too  often  repeated  that  on 
*  Vatican  principles '  bishops  have  a  right  to  exercise  their 
judgment  in  such  a  case  as  that  of  Theodoret ;  and,  this 
being  the  case,  the  actual  mention  of  Leo  on  every  occasion 
was  not  needed,  and  in  view  of  the  new  accusation  raised 
against  him  it  was  enough  to  allege  their  reasons  for 
adhering  to  Leo's  judgment  by  themselves  without  explicit 
mention  of  anything  besides  these. 


CHAPTEE   VII 

ANTIOCH's    dependence    on    ROME 

Two  matters  were  also  decided  at  the  Synod  which  con- 
cerned the  See  of  Antioch,  and  which  brought  to  the 
front  the  acknowledged  jurisdiction  of  the  See  of  Kome 
over  the  whole  Church.  The  first  concerned  a  compact 
entered  into  with  Juvenal  of  Jerusalem,  by  which  Antioch 
parted  with  three  fair  provinces  of  its  patriarchate. 
Juvenal  had  long  set  his  heart  upon  the  extension  of  his 
jurisdiction.  He  had  succeeded  in  so  completely  gaining 
the  ear  of  the  Emperor,  Theodosius  II.,  that  he  had  been 
allowed  to  count  in  his  rule  the  two  provinces  of  Phoenicia 
and  also  that  of  Arabia,  together  with  the  three  provinces 
of  Palestine,  which  belonged  to  the  jurisdiction  of  Antioch. 
St.  Cyril  had  done  his  utmost  to  oppose  this  iniquitous 
proceeding,  and  appealed  to  the  Pope,  entreating  him 
with  '  earnest  prayer  '  to  lend  no  countenance  to  such 
*  illicit  attempts.'  But  Juvenal  gained  his  case  with  the 
secular  power  by  means  of  forged  documents.' 

This  quarrel  over  their  respective  jurisdictions  had 
continued  until  the  time  of  the  Council,  when  Maximus 
acquiesced  in  a  compromise,  by  which  Antioch  was  to  be 
shorn  of  the  three  provinces  of  Palestine,  and  Juvenal 
was  to  give  up  all  claim  to  the  two  provinces  of  Phoenicia 
and  that  of  Arabia.  But  Maximus  consented  to  this 
'  Leon.  Ejp.  119. 


MAXIMUS   OF   ANTIOCH  313 

arrangement  only  '  if  it  was  approved  by  our  venerable 
father,  the  Archbishop  of  greater  Kome.'  ^  Thereupon 
the  legates  gave  their  sanction  to  the  arrangement  as 
though  Leo  had  consented.  This,  however,  Leo  had 
never  done,  and  when  his  opposition  to  the  28th  Canon  on 
the  ground  that  it  contravened  the  Nicene  arrangement 
became  known,  Maximus,  it  would  seem,  discerned  his 
opportunity  and  endeavoured  to  enlist  Leo's  aid  in  the 
recovery  of  his  provinces  from  the  jurisdiction  of 
Jerusalem.  Leo  expressly  disclaimed  the  consent  given 
by  his  legates,  and  gave  general  advice  to  Maximus,  in 
favour  of  his  desire  to  recover  his  lost  provinces,  but 
abstained  from  any  direct  advice  as  to  the  present 
moment.  The  fact  was,  that  Juvenal  was  then  in  trouble 
in  his  patriarchate  in  his  laudable  and  stubborn  defence 
of  the  definition  of  Chalcedon  against  his  refractory 
monks. 

But  the  important  point  to  notice  is  that  the  finality 
of  the  arrangement  was  held  to  depend  on  the  consent  of 
the  Holy  See. 

The  other  matter  concerning  Antioch  touched  its 
former  bishop,  Domnus,  for  whom  Maximus  generously 
asked  a  pension.  Domnus  had  been  Bishop  of  Antioch 
at  the  Latrocinium  (Robber- Synod).  As  has  been  already 
said,  this  unfortunate  man,  the  nephew  of  John  of 
Antioch,  had  left  his  cell  contrary  to  the  advice  of  his 
abbot,  with  a  view  to  influencing  his  uncle  in  the  Nes- 
torian  controversy.  At  Antioch  he  won  his  way  to  the 
episcopal  throne  and  appeared  as  its  bishop  at  Ephesus 
to  take  part  in  the  miserable  tragedy  there  enacted  under 
Dioscorus.  Having  shown  the  white  feather,  and  allowed 
himself  to  be  cowed  by  Dioscorus  into  consenting  to  the 

'  Mansi,  vii.  770  ;  also  Leon.  Opp.  ii.  1223. 


314  ROME   AND 

restoration  of  Eutyches  and  the  condemnation  of  Flavian, 
he  was  also  himself  deposed  by  Dioscorus,  on  the  ground 
of  long-past  sympathy  with  Nestorius  and  of  having  once 
condemned  Cyril.  He  was  accordingly  exiled  by  Theo- 
dosius.  While  he  was  still  living,  Anatolius  ordained 
Maximus  bishop  of  Antioch  in  his  place  at  Constanti- 
nople in  contravention  of  the  Nicene  canons.  On  the 
restoration  of  the  bishops  who  had  been  similarly  ousted 
from  their  sees,  and  the  deposition  of  the  intruders, 
Maximus,  instead  of  being  deposed,  was  allowed  to  retain 
his  intrusive  position.  The  only  reason  given  by  the 
Council  of  Chalcedon  for  this  exception  was  that  Leo  had 
ordered  that  his  ordination  should  hold  good.  The 
Archbishop  of  Constantinople,  Anatolius,  said :  '  We 
decide  that  none  of  those  things  are  valid  which  were 
done  in  that  so-called  Synod  [the  Latrocinium]  except 
the  matter  of  Maximus,  Bishop  of  Antioch,  since  Leo  the 
Bishop  of  Kome,  having  received  him  into  communion, 
decided  that  he  should  rule  the  Church  of  Antioch  ; 
following  which  decision,  I  also  have  assented  and  the 
whole  of  the  Synod  present.' ' 

The  learned  Jansenist,  Quesnel,  who  always  avowed 
the  greatest  regard  for  the  prerogatives  of  the  See  of 
Peter,  but  took  every  opportunity  of  undermining  their 
historical  basis,  remarks  on  this  treatment  of  Domnus 
and  Maximus,  that  if  only  the  Act  in  which  their  case 
occurs  were  genuine,  we  should  have  in  our  hands  an 
unequivocal  testimony  to  '  the  supreme  authority  of  the 
Pontiff  over  Synods  and  over  Oriental  bishops,  the 
bishops  of  the  greater  sees.'  But  he  set  to  work  to  show 
that  the  record  of  this  session  could  not  be  considered 
genuine.      His  arguments  were  dealt  with  by  Baluze, 

'  Mansi,  vii.  258. 


MAXIMUS   OF   ANTJtOCH  315 

indeed  we  may  fairly  say  were  crushed  to  atoms  by  that 
learned  writer.^  Tillemont,  in  spite  of  his  theological 
and  historical  sympathies,  deserted  Quesnel  and  called  his 
arguments  nothing  less  than  imbecile.  But  the  matter 
was  set  at  rest  by  a  manuscript  which  Quesnel  had  not 
seen,  but  which  Cardinal  Casanata  discovered  ^  and 
transmitted  to  Baluze,  and  which  has  been  edited  with 
their  usual  learning  by  the  Ballerini.  This  same  docu- 
ment contains  the  condition  which  Maximus  attached  to 
his  compromise  with  Juvenal,  viz.  if  the  Bishop  of  Kome 
consented. 

The  prerogative  admitted  in  this  Act  as  belonging  to 
Leo  covers  in  substance  everything  ever  claimed  by  the 
Holy  See  in  the  way  of  jurisdiction.  St.  Leo  dispensed 
with  the  irregularity  in  the  case  of  Maximus's  ordination 
to  Antioch  and  the  Synod  gave  this  reason,  and  only 
this,  for  their  action  in  accepting  that  ordination.  They 
also,  in  the  same  session,  assigned  the  invalidity  of  the 
transactions  of  the  Bobber- Synod  to  the  decision  of  the 
Bishop  of  Bome.  Now  as  we  know  that  Leo  himself  con- 
templated their  entering  upon  the  consideration  of  the 
case  of  individual  bishops  at  Chalcedon,  we  can  only 
conclude  that  Leo's  decision  was  regarded  as  the 
supremely  invalidating  factor.  But  the  case  of  Maximus 
was  more  crucial.  In  ordaining  him  at  Constantinople, 
and  without  any  regard  to  the  bishops  of  his  provinces, 
and  when  Domnus  was  still  alive,  they  were  contra- 
vening the  Nicene  canons  in  every  way,  and  it  was  in 
this  crucial  case  that  they  quoted  Leo's  decision  as  the 
determining  element  in  their  own  action. 

'  Baluze's  arguments  are  given  in  Mansi,  vii.  6G6-G74,  and  the  most 
important  are  repeated  by  the  Ballerini  in  their  Ohserv.  in  Diss.  ix. 
Quesnelli  {Leon.  0pp.  ii.  1215,  ff). 

-  Codex  Vatic.  1322. 


316  EOME   AND 

St.  Leo  probably  dispensed  with  the  irregularity  of 
the  proceeding  because  Maximus  had  shown  his  adhesion 
to  the  orthodox  faith,  whilst  Domnus,  after  his  cowardly 
conduct  at  the  Latrocinium,  did  not  ask  for  reinstate- 
ment, but  found  his  way  back  in  a  spirit  of  penance  to 
the  cell  which  he  ought  never  to  have  left. 


Note. 

It  has  been  objected  to  the  deduction  as  to  Papal  juris- 
diction drawn  from  the  case  of  Maximus  (1)  that  he  '  had 
already  approved  himself  orthodox  by  circulars  throughout 
his  provinces,  so  that  the  Council  in  accepting  him  from  the 
outset  as  Bishop  of  Antioch,  had  not  inerely  Leo's  act  to  rest 
upon  '  (Bright,  Boman  See,  p.  195).  But,  setting  aside  the  fact 
that  this  was  d  propos  of  Leo's  Tome,  which  Dr.  Bright  does 
not  allow  to  have  been  of  faith  at  that  time,  the  point  is  that 
the  only  ground  luhich  Anatolius  gave  for  the  Synod's  action 
was  Leo's  decision  that  Maximus  should  hold  the  bishopric 
(Mansi,  vii.  257).  It  is  objected  also  (2)  that  *  Stephen  of 
Ephesus  spoke  of  the  appointment  as  originally  "  canonical " ' 
{ibid).  This,  however,  is  not  the  case.  The  word  '  originally ' 
is  not  there.  The  Ballerini  point  out  that  Stephen's  words 
would  not  necessarily  imply  more  than  that  Domnus  by  his 
subsequent  acquiescence  had  contributed  to  the  possibility  of 
validating  Maximus's  ordination.  The  original  act  needed 
to  be  condoned;  else  why  moot  the  matter  at  all?  Leo 
expressly  says  that  the  ordination  was  originally  irregular 
(Ep.  104).  And  in  the  same  sentence  Stephen  spoke  of 
Leo's  decision  as  preceding  that  of  the  Synod,  which  shows 
that,  whatever  he  meant  by  *  canonical,'  there  was  something 
for  Leo  to  do  in  the  way  of  validating  the  act,  else  he  would 
not  have  been  mentioned  at  all. 

As  regards  the  condition  attached  by  Maximus  to  his 
compromise  with  Juvenal,  viz.  if  the  Bishop  of  Eome  should 
consent,  Dr.  Bright  {Boman  See,  p.  196)  objects  (1)  that  it  *  is 
not  in  the  Greek  Acts  (Mansi,  vii.  180).'  But  the  '  Greek  Acts ' 


MAXIMUS   OF   ANTIOCH  317 

in  Mansi,  vii.  180,  are  considered  by  Mansi  himself  to  be 
defective.  He  has  accordingly  supplemented  the  version  on 
p.  180  with  the  version  in  which  the  said  salvo  occurs  {cf. 
p.  770).  Dr.  Bright  ought  to  have  noticed  this.  The  Latin 
version  discovered  by  Casanata,  which  contains  the  salvo, 
represents  a  very  old  Greek  original,  as  Baluze,  and  especi- 
ally the  Ballerini,  have  shown.  Mansi  himself  endorses  this. 
He  thinks  it  older  than  the  version  used  by  Eusticus  in  the 
sixth  century.  The  Ballerini  give  reasons  for  believing  that 
parts  of  the  Acts  of  the  Council  were  sent  at  once  to  Leo, 
such  as  the  definition  of  faith,  and  this  Act,  as  Leo's  consent 
was  mentioned.  Probably  Maximus  sent  it  in  Greek  with  a 
translation,  or  it  may  have  been  translated  when  it  reached 
Eome.  Mansi  thinks  this  conjecture  of  the  Ballerini  pro- 
bable. He  also  notices,  after  Baluze  and  the  Ballerini,  that 
it  is  obviously  the  translation  of  a  Greek  version,  for  the 
salvo  contains  the  expression  'greater  Eome,'  which  is 
Greek,  not  Eoman,  style.  See  Mansi's  note  in  Natal.  Alex. 
H.E.  ix.  p.  600.  Dr.  Bright  is  thus  clearly  at  fault  in  talking 
of  the  salvo  as  a  '  Boman  invention.'  See  Leon.  0]^p.  ed. 
Bailer.  T.  ii.  {De  caussa  Domni,  Observ.).  (2)  Dr.  Bright 
also  objects  that  '  the  legates'  speech,  even  as  there  given, 
ignores  it,'  i.e.  the  salvo.  But  as  I  have  shown  in  the  text, 
the  legates'  speech,  so  far  from  ignoring  it,  was  meant  to 
fulfil  it.  (3)  Again,  Dr.  Bright  adds,  '  nor  does  Leo  mention 
it  in  his  letter  of  453.'  But  he  alludes  to  the  legates'  con- 
sent, and  deprecates  their  action  being  taken  for  his  consent 
in  any  matter  not  explicitly  mentioned  by  him.  He  is 
writing  to  Maximus  himself  on  this  very  matter  (Ep. 
119,  §  5). 

In  this  same  session  the  invalidity  of  the  acts  of  the 
Eobber-Synod  is  assigned  by  the  bishops  simply  and  solely 
to  the  decision  of  the  Bishop  of  Eome.  On  this  Dr.  Bright 
(ihid.  p.  185,  note  ^)  remarks  *  as  if  it  did  not  result  from  the 
proceedings  re  Dioscorus.'  But  in  this  case  the  bishops  are 
speakiDg  of  all  the  proceedings  of  the  Eobber-Synod.  The 
said  proceedings  had  only  dealt  wdth  some. 


CHAPTEE    VIII 

PKEVIOUS    ENCROACHMENTS    OF    *  NEW    ROME  ' 

It  had  been  well  for  the  Church  if  the  Council  had  now 
dispersed.  But  it  was  not  to  be.  The  bishops  who  re- 
mained engaged  in  a  project  which  had  long  agitated  the 
minds  of  a  few  leading  spirits. 

For  more  than  eighty  years  Constantinople  had 
nursed  a  thought  which  was  destined  to  change  the 
course  of  ecclesiastical  history,  and  plunge  her  into  a 
permanent  schism.  Photius,  who  consummated  the 
schism  between  the  East  and  West  in  the  ninth  century, 
claimed  for  the  Bishop  of  Constantinople  the  title  and 
position  of  '  Universal  Bishop.'  The  Bishop  of  Kome  had 
been  such,  according  to  his  theory,  until  the  capital  of  the 
Empire  passed  from  Rome  to  Byzantium.  But  the  posi- 
tion of  universal  bishop  was  based,  according  to  Photius, 
on  the  secular  grandeur  of  the  city ;  so  that  when  Con- 
stantino left  Rome  it  was  only  a  matter  of  time  for  Byzan- 
tium to  succeed  to  the  honours  of  the  original  capital. 

The  difference  between  this  theory  and  that  which  ob- 
tained in  the  fifth  century  involved  the  whole  question  of 
the  property  attributed  to  the  Church  in  the  Nicene 
Creed  under  the  title  '  Apostolic'  Under  that  title,  in 
the  mind  of  the  early  Church,  was  included  the  govern- 
ment of  the  Church  by  the  Apostles  and  their  suc- 
cessors ;  understanding  by  *  the  Apostles,'  as  the  primitive 


PREVIOUS  ENCROACHMENTS  OF  'NEW  ROME'   319 

Church  did,  a  body  of  men  who  were  associated  together 
by  our  Lord  under  a  visible  head.  '  It  has  been  known 
to  all  ages,'  so  it  was  said  at  Ephesus, '  and  it  is  doubtful 
to  none,  that  the  blessed  Apostle  Peter,  the  Prince  and 
head  of  the  Apostles,  the  rock  and  foundation  of  the 
Catholic  Church,  received  from  our  Saviour  the  keys  of 
the  Kingdom.'  And  the  see  of  that  Apostle,  consecrated 
by  the  blood  of  the  two  Apostles,  himself  and  St.  Paul, 
became,  in  the  words  of  St.  Irenaeus  and  St.  Cyprian, 
the  principal  or  ruling  Church,  that  which,  according  to 
St.  Ignatius  of  Antioch,  writing  in  the  second  century, 
'  presided  over  the  [covenant  of]  love,'  and  in  which, 
according  to  St.  Augustine,  '  the  principalship  had  ever 
been  in  force,'  and  was  designated  in  the  terminology  of 
the  whole  Church,  East  and  West,  in  the  fifth  century, 
*  the  Apostolic  See.' 

The  chasm  between  the  teaching  of  the  schismatic 
Bishop  of  Constantinople,  Photius,  in  the  ninth  century, 
and  his  predecessor  in  the  see  in  the  fifth  century  at 
Chalcedon,  is  exactly  expressed  in  the  words  of  the  latter 
when  he  said  to  Leo  :  '  The  see  of  Constantinople  has 
for  its  parent  your  own  Apostolic  See,  having  specially 
joined  itself  thereunto.'  ^ 

But  although  Anatolius  thus  expressed  the  true  rela- 
tion between  Eome  and  Constantinople,  his  action  at 
Chalcedon  prepared  the  way  for  the  unhappy  schism 
into  which  the  East  eventually  plunged,  under  the  guid- 
ance of  the  miserable  Photius,  with  his  claim  to  be 
'  Universal  Bishop.'  The  term  '  universal  bishop  '  is  one 
which  might  be  properly  used  to  express  the  relation  of 
the  Apostolic  See  to  the  rest  of  the  Church,  but  even  so  it 
needed  a  certain  care  lest  it  should  be  thought  to  mean 

'  '  Anatolius  ad  Leoneni '  {Ep.  101). 


320  PKF.VIOUS   ENCROACHMENTS 

that  other  bishops  were  but  legates  or  vice-bishops  of 
the  one  universal  bishop.  In  fear  of  this  meaning  being 
attached  to  the  term,  St.  Gregory  repudiated  it.  It  was, 
however,  freely  used  at  the  Council  of  Chalcedon.  And 
there  is  no  fear  of  any  Catholic  nowadays  giving  it  such 
an  unorthodox  interpretation  as  St.  Gregory  detected  in 
John's  use  of  the  term,  and  so  there  is  no  ground  for 
refusing  it  to  the  occupant  of  the  See  of  Rome.  But  on 
the  lips  of  a  bishop  of  Constantinople  it  necessarily 
implied  a  heresy,  for  it  also  implied  the  idea  that  the 
government  of  the  Church  was  not  Apostolic  but  Erastian. 
The  earthly  Emperor,  according  to  this  theory,  by 
moving  his  capital,  moved  the  centre  of  the  Church's 
unity.  So  Photius  argued.  Neither  he  nor  his  prede- 
cessors were  really  prepared  to  carry  out  this  theory  to 
its  logical  issue,  for,  as  a  Sovereign  Pontiff  asked  of  his 
predecessors,  were  they  prepared  to  call  Ravenna,  or 
Gangra,  or  Sirmium,  the  centre  of  the  Church's  govern- 
ment when  the  Emperor  made  these,  as  he  did,  the 
centre  of  his  rule  ? 

The  attack,  however,  on  the  original  constitution  of 
the  Church,  which  culminated,  under  favourable  political 
circumstances,  in  the  schismatic  action  of  the 'East  under 
Photius,  was  commenced  in  fact  at  the  Council  of  Con- 
stantinople in  381.  There  the  bishops  assembled  under 
Nectarius  had  decreed  a  certain  precedency  of  honour  to 
the  '  New  Rome,'  as  Byzantine  pride  delighted  to  call  the 
city  of  Constantino.  But  they  had  not  ventured  so  much 
as  to  send  their  canon  to  the  West.  It  was  a  purely 
local  arrangement,  not  sanctioned  even  by  the  rest  of  the 
East.  As  a  canon^  it  was  no  sooner  born  than  it  died. 
It  never  took  effect  as  a  cano7i ;  but  it  represented 
ambitions  which  pursued  their  path  with  almost  un- 


OF   'NEW   ROME'  321 

deviating  determination  until  the  effort  was  now  made  at 
Chalcedon  to  give  them  a  higher  sanction. 

But  to  understand  this  attempt  at  supremacy  in  the 
East,  we  must  recall  some  events  which  had  occurred 
since  381,  and  also  what  took  place  in  the  later  sessions 
at  Chalcedon,  when  the  episcopal  ranks  had  been  thinned 
by  the  departure  of  several  hundreds. 

By  the  Nicene  settlement  the  arrangement  of  ecclesi- 
astical matters  in  the  '  dioceses,'  or  clusters  of  provinces, 
of  Asia,  Pontus  and  Thrace  lay  entirely  with  the  synods 
of  each  province  within  the  diocese ;  ^  and  none  of  the 
great  Patriarchs,  so  to  call  them,  claimed  any  power  in 
these  regions,  nor  did  these  three  groups  in  any  way 
blend  into  one.  It  was,  however,  in  the  nature  of  things 
that  Constantinople,  as  she  grew,  should  cast  her  eye  on 
these  autonomous  '  dioceses  '  and  desire  to  form  to  her- 
self a  new  Patriarchate,  so  that  the  Imperial  city,  '  New 
Eome,'  might  hold  the  second  place  after  '  Old  Eome '  in 
ecclesiastical  affairs,  not  only  nominally  but  in  an 
effective  way. 

But  the  advance  was  gradual.  Patriarchal  superi- 
ority included  two  things — honorary  precedence,  and 
effective  jurisdiction.^  Under  the  latter  head  was  included 
the  ordination  of  metropolitans  and  the  right  to  con- 
vene, to  receive  the  reports,  and  to  manage  the  business 
of  Provincial  Synods  {avac^opa).     Honorary  precedence 

'  It  is  unfortunate  that  our  modern  use  of  the  word  '  diocese ' 
denotes  a  smaller  region  than  a  province.  In  early  times  the  opposite 
was  the  case.  The  '  diocese  '  of  Asia  included  Lydia,  Caria,  Mysia, 
Phrygia  and  Hellespont— i.e.  Lower  Asia — and  also  Pamphylia,  Lycaonia, 
Pisidia,  Isauria,  and  Cilicia,  i.e.  Upper  Asia. 

2  The  mere  title  of  Patriarch  was  conferred  on  the  Bishop  of 
Chalcedon  by  the  Emperor  and  the  Synod  at  the  sixth  session  of  the 
Council. 

Y 


322  PREVIOUS  ENCROACHMENTS 

{irpsa-^sla  rrjs  rcfir/s)  had  been  assigned  to  the  see  of 
Constantinople  at  the  Council  of  381  in  the  third  canon 
— precedence  even  over  Alexandria  and  Antioch — 
primacy  of  honour,  but  not  of  administration.  Indeed 
that  third  canon,  coming  as  it  did  after  the  second, 
could  not  have  ascribed  more  than  a  primacy  of  honour 
without  contradicting  the  second.  Constantinople,  ac- 
cordingly, though  situated  in  the  very  jaws  of  Europe 
and  Asia,  lay  in  the  '  diocese '  (or  group  of  provinces)  of 
Thrace ;  and  the  administration  of  the  provinces  of 
Thrace  was  expressly  committed  by  the  second  canon  of 
381  to  their  Synods,  Heraclea  being  their  canonical 
centre.  The  same  form  of  administration  was  laid  down 
as  regards  Asia,  with  its  centre  at  Ephesus,  and  again  as 
regards  Pontus,  with  its  centre  at  Caesarea  in  Cappadocia, 
whose  bishop  in  451  was  Thalassius.  Thus  any  attempts 
at  enlarging  the  jurisdiction  of  Constantinople  would 
centre  round  the  sees  of  Ephesus,  Caesarea,  and  Heraclea 
— of  which  the  first  was  vacant  in  451,  the  second  was 
occupied  by  a  bishop  of  peculiar  antecedents,  viz. 
Thalassius,  and  the  third  was  not  at  the  Council,  but 
was  represented  by  Lucian,  a  friend  of  Anatolius,  the 
Archbishop  of  Constantinople.  This  singular  coinci- 
dence, much  in  favour  of  any  move  that  might  be  made 
by  Constantinople  towards  the  enlargement  of  her  juris- 
diction, will  go  far  towards  explaining  what  now  took 
place  at  Chalcedon. 

After  the  Council  of  381,  those  three  *  dioceses ' 
maintained  their  separate  administration  for  a  while. 
In  the  law  *  de  Fide  Catholica  '  in  the  Theodosian  Code 
the  three  groups,  with  their  mother  cities  of  Ephesus, 
Heraclea  and  Csesarea  in  Cappadocia,  are  mentioned  as 
centres  of  communion  —  while  Nectarius,  the  Archbishop 


OF   'NEW  ROME'  323 

of  Constantinople,  was  a  centre  of  orthodoxy  to  that  city 
and  its  suburbs  alone  and  not  to  Thrace,  whose  metro- 
politan is  mentioned  separately. 

But  the  honorary  precedence  assigned  to  Constanti- 
nople by  the  third  canon  of  381,  was  being  continually 
converted  into  a  primacy  of  jurisdiction.  The  most 
important  step  in  this  direction  was  taken  by  the  estab- 
lishment— not  of  avowed  design,  nor  by  any  one  act,  but 
through  circumstances — of  a  Synod  in  the  Imperial  city. 
Constantinople  had  no  Synod  of  her  own  by  canon  law ; 
no  Synod  to  which  the  reports  of  Metropolitical  Synods 
could  be  sent  in — one  of  the  great  signs  and  instruments 
of  jurisdiction ;  no  Synod  in  which  the  quarrels  of 
bishops  could  be  dealt  with  ;  nor  had  she  any  right  to 
ordain  metropolitans.  This  was  excluded  by  the  second 
canon  of  381.  And  yet  a  Patriarchal  Synod  was  com- 
posed only  of  those  who  received  ordination  from  the 
Patriarch ;  and,  conversely,  those  metropolitans  alone 
were  ordained  by  a  Patriarch  who  were  subject  to  his 
Synod  and  jurisdiction. 

But  in  spite  of  this  what  has  been  called  the 
*  Eesident  Synod '  came  into  being.  This  was  not,  on 
strict  canonical  principles,  a  Synod  at  all :  but  it  served 
the  purpose,  and  acquired  the  name,  of  a  Synod.  Some 
sixty  bishops  at  a  time,  of  the  first  and  second  rank,  were 
wont  to  be  temporarily  resident  in  the  Imperial  city  in 
connection  with  the  business  of  their  diocese  or  province 
at  the  Court,  and  these,  on  occasion,  approached  the 
Emperor  as  a  body,  and  hence  the  idea,  and  the  usur- 
pation of  the  name,  of  a  Synod.  Custom  soon  took  the 
place  of  canon,  and  the  episcopal  gatherings  in  the 
imperial  city  assumed  the  functions  of  a  regular  Synod. 

An  instance  of  the  way  in  which  this  Synod  sometimes 

Y   2 


324  PREVIOUS   ENCROACHMENTS 

worked  is  found  in  the  fourth  *  Act '  of  the  Council  of 
Chalcedon.^  Eustathius,  Bishop  of  Berytus,  had  induced 
the  Emperor  to  hand  over  to  him  the  ordination  to 
certain  sees  which  belonged  to  the  jurisdiction  of 
Photius  of  Tyre.  The  Kesident  Synod  of  Constantinople 
had  issued  a  decision  in  conformity  with  the  Imperial 
rescript,  and  had  induced  Photius  to  sign  the  decision, 
under  threats  of  deposition.  It  had  also  prevailed  upon 
Maximus  of  Antioch,  in  whose  patriarchate  the  cities  in 
question  were  situated,  to  sign  a  document  in  favour  of 
Eustathius,  Maximus  being  at  Constantinople  at  the  time, 
although  not  at  the  Synod.  But  the  Council  of  Chalce- 
don  reversed  the  decision  of  the  Imperial  rescript  and 
nullified  its  confirmation  by  the  Kesident  Synod.  It 
decided  that  Photius  was  within  his  rights  in  accordance 
with  the  fourth  Nicene  canon,  which  was  read  out,  and 
which  had  decreed  that  the  authority  of  the  metropolitan 
should  be  respected  in  each  province.  The  Council  at 
the  same  time  questioned  the  application  of  the  term 
Synod  to  the  Constantinopolitan  assemblies,  whereupon 
Anatolius  the  archbishop,  defended  their  existence  on  the 
ground  of  custom  and  convenience,  but  not  on  canonical 
grounds.-^  The  third  canon  of  Constantinople  was  not 
appealed  to  as  though  it  made  the  Imperial  see  a  centre 
of  metropolitan  authority.  That  canon,  as  Leo  said,  had 
collapsed  from  the  first. 

But  there  could  be  no  question  of  the  utility  of  the 
Resident  Synod  under  many  circumstances.  St.  Chryso- 
stom  was  reinstated  by  it  after  his  deposition  by  the 
Synod  '  at  the  Oak,'  ^  and  Eutyches  was  condemned  by 
Flavian  in  a  similar  gathering. 

The  name  of  Chrysostom  brings  us  to  the  most  signal 

'  Mansi,  vii.  85,  ff.  ^  Ibid.  96.  ^  Soz.  H.  E.  viii.  c.  19. 


OF  'NEW  EOME'  325 

instance  of  Constantinople's  intervention  in  the  affairs  of 
one  of  the  three  great  dioceses  or  eparchies,  over  which 
she  always  tended  to  exercise  authority.  And  it  affords 
us  an  insight  into  the  real  difficulties  of  the  problem 
which  demanded  a  solution  as  the  Church  developed  her 
organisation  in  the  East,  The  splendour  of  the  Imperial 
see  and  the  new  dignity  conferred  on  it,  however  illegi- 
timately, by  the  third  canon  of  381  in  the  teeth  of  the 
Nicene  settlement,  naturally  led  to  the  Bishops  of 
Constantinople  mixing  themselves  up  with  the  appoint- 
ment and  ordination  of  metropolitans  of  provinces,  on 
invitation  from  the  provincial  bishops.  On  the  plea  of 
restraining  the  ambition  of  other  prelates,  of  putting  a 
stop  to  pecuniary  exactions  and  illegal  traffic  in  bishop- 
rics, or,  again,  of  calming  seditions  and  tumults  on  the 
occasion  of  episcopal  elections,  a  wide  door  was  opened 
for  the  use  of  her  honorary  precedence  in  the  direction 
of  semi-authoritative  jurisdiction.  In  the  Council  of 
Chalcedon,  Philip,  a  Presbyter  of  Constantinople,  quoted 
the  action  of  St.  Chrysostom  at  Ephesus  in  favour  of  the 
ordinations  to  that  see  being  assigned  to  Constantinople 
as  a  matter  of  right. ^ 

But  St.  Chrysostom  went  to  Ephesus  by  desire  of  the 
Ephesian  clergy  and  the  rest  of  the  bishops  in  that 
region.  Antoninus  had  been  accused  of  selling  bishoprics 
but  died  before  his  case  came  on.  On  his  death  the 
city  of  Ephesus  was  torn  with  factions  over  the  election 
of  a  successor,  which  led  to  St.  Chrysostom  going  there, 
and,  with  the  general  feeling  in  his  favour,  consecrating 
his  deacon  Heraclides  to  the  see.  Antoninus  had  been 
accused  by  Eusebius  at  the  Eesident  Synod,  and  had 
presented    himself    at   this    Synod    in   Constantinople, 

'  Mansi,  vii.  293. 


326  PREVIOUS  ENCROACHMENTS 

which  thus  exercised  consensual  jurisdiction  in  the 
matter  ;  so  that  on  several  grounds  St.  Chrysostom  was 
justified  in  his  intervention.  The  second  canon  of 
Constantinople,  while  expressly  safeguarding  the  rights 
of  the  exarch  of  Ephesus  among  others,  had  disallowed 
bishops  going  to  other  dioceses  to  ordain,  but  only  if  not 
invited,^  just  as  the  fourteenth  and  thirty-fourth  of  the 
Apostolic  Constitutions  had  contemplated  the  possibility 
of  intervention  at  the  instance  of  '  many  bishops  '  '  and 
with  the  most  pressing  invitation.'  ^ 

It  was  not,  therefore,  the  third  canon  of  381  that  was 
relied  on  in  the  advancement  of  Constantinople's  position 
of  authority.  The  growth  of  her  authority  was  due 
sometimes  to  an  occasion  of  public  utility,  sometimes  to 
a  move  on  the  part  of  an  ambitious  archbishop,  sometimes 
to  an  act  of  deference,  not  to  say  subservience,  to 
Imperial  authority,  which  naturally  endeavoured  to  use 
the  archbishop  of  the  new  capital  to  further  its  ends. 
As,  for  instance,  Sisinnius,  when  Archbishop  of  Constanti- 
nople, designated  Proclus  for  the  bishopric  of  Cyzicum, 
the  metropolis  of  Hellespont,  in  the  '  diocese '  of  Asia. 
The  Cyzicenes  resisted  the  intrusion  successfully,  and 
whereas  Sisinnius  pleaded  an  enactment  of  the  Emperor 
Theodosius,  the  Cyzicenes  set  this  aside  on  the  ground 
that  it  applied  only  to  his  predecessor  Atticus,  being  a 
personal  privilege.  It  is  to  be  noticed  that  on  the  one 
hand  Sisinnius  did  not  appeal  to  the  canon  of  381,  and 
on  the  other  hand,  the  contention  of  the  Cyzicenes  shows 
that  they  also  did  not  consider  that  Constantinople  had 
received  anything  in  the  way  of  jurisdiction  by  that 
canon. 

It  was  not,  then,  the  canon  of  381  that  prevailed  to 


OF   'NEW   ROME'  327 

shelter  Constantinople  in  her  growing  tendency  to 
exercise  jurisdiction  over  the  eparchies  or '  dioceses  '  that 
lay  close  over  against  her  ;  it  was  rather  the  example  of 
such  a  saintly  prelate  as  St.  Chrysostom,  misapplied  ;  it 
was  the  temptation  to  act  in  conformity  with  Imperial  re- 
scripts ;  and  it  was  a  natural  fruit,  human  nature  being 
what  it  is,  of  the  honorary  precedence  spoken  of  in  that 
third  canon  of  381  ;  but  the  result  was  not  on  that 
account  regular  or  canonical.  At  the  same  time,  so  far 
as  those  three  Eastern  dioceses  of  Asia,  Pontus  and 
Thrace  were  concerned,  it  was  an  arrangement  which,  if 
the  Nicene  settlement  were  set  aside,  would  commend  it- 
self to  good  sense.  But  there  was  only  one  power  which 
could  alter  the  Nicene  arrangement,  viz.  the  Church 
herself  acting  through  the  Apostolic  See,  or  through  an 
(Ecumenical  Council  commissioned  to  act  in  such  a 
matter,  or  confirmed  in  its  action  by  the  Holy  See. 

Constantinople  tried  her  best  with  the  fragments  of 
an  (Ecumenical  Council,  and  with  the  Apostolic  See,  in 
451  and  the  two  following  years,  but,  as  we  shall  presently 
see,  in  vain.  She  seems  from  the  first  to  have  had  some 
idea  of  improving  her  position  by  means  of  intrigue  at 
the  Council :  such  at  least  is  the  natural  deduction  from 
the  caution  given  to  the  legates  not  to  be  a  party  to  any 
alteration  of  the  Nicene  arrangement  in  the  relative 
position  of  sees.  De  Marca  thinks  that  the  subject  of 
ordinations  was  purposely  introduced  with  a  view  to 
leading  up  to  the  question  of  her  position.  Whether  this 
be  so  or  not,  that  question  at  length  came  to  the  front, 
though  not  in  the  regular  sessions  of  the  (Ecumenical 
Council,  which  ended  with  the  sixth. 

It  was  in  this  wise.  In  the  eleventh  session,  the 
whole  subject  of  the  relation  of  Ephesus  to  Constantinople 


328  PREVIOUS   ENCEOACHMENTS 

came  before  the  Council  through  the  appeal  of  Bassian, 
who  claimed  to  be  the  rightful  occupant  of  the  see  of 
Ephesus,  as  against  Stephen,  who  advanced  a  counter- 
claim. The  history  of  the  matter  was  as  follows.  After 
the  deaths  of  Memnon  and  Basilius,  Bassian  seized  the 
bishopric  by  means  of  violence  and  bribery,  without  the 
vote  of  the  Synod.  The  Emperor  Theodosius  on  appeal 
confirmed  him  in  the  bishopric.  Bassian  forthwith 
went  to  Constantinople  and  ingratiated  himself  with 
Proclus,  the  archbishop,  and  was  received  into  com- 
munion by  him  and  by  the  bishops  of  the  'Eesident 
Synod,'  at  the  desire  of  Theodosius.  Eventually,  how- 
ever, he  was  ejected  by  Stephen,  who  threw  him  into 
prison,  and  Stephen  was  elected  by  the  vote  of  forty 
Asiatic  bishops.  The  matter  had  been  again  referred  by 
Theodosius  to  the  Patriarchs,  including  of  course  the 
Bishop  of  Eome,  on  whose  decision  Stephen  specially 
relied.^  Their  decision  was  in  favour  of  Stephen,  but  it 
was  intended  to  be  executed,  not  by  force,  but  through 
proper  synodical  action.  Stephen,  however,  had  used 
force.  Consequently,  both  Bassian  and  Stephen  were 
deposed,  but  permitted  to  retain  the  rank  of  bishop  with 
an  allotted  pension. 

Now  in  dealing  with  this  affair  the  rights  of  Con- 
stantinople were  touched  upon.  Lucian,  the  political 
Vicarms  of  Byza  and  Bishop  of  Heraclea,  a  strong  parti- 
san of  Constantinopolitan  privileges,  pleaded  that  since 
Proclus,  the  archbishop,  had  received  Bassian  to  com- 
munion, he  had  settled  the  matter.  He  spoke  of  Proclus 
as  possessing  authority  ^  in  the  matter,  though  Bassian 
himself  only  said  that  he  had  been  received  into  com- 

'  Mansi,  vii.  289. 

'^  Ibid.  284.     o  excoi/  t^  kD/joj,     This  latter  term  is  that  regularly  used 


OF  'NEW   ROME'  329 

munion  at  Constantinople — a  different  matter.  Both 
Bassian  and  Stephen  were  treated  as  in  communion  with 
the  Church,  though  not  as  necessarily  legitimate  Bishops 
of  Ephesus.  The  act  of  Proclus  was  one  of  charity,  not 
of  superior  jurisdiction.^ 

But  Lucian's  expression  about  the  authority  of  Pro- 
clus seems  to  have  started  the  all-important  question  in 
the  mind  of  Eusebius  of  Dorylaeum,  as  to  where  the 
Bishop  of  Ephesus  ought  to  be  ordained.  At  once  the 
bishops  of  the  diocese  of  Asia  prostrated  themselves  on 
the  ground  before  their  fellow-bishops,  terrified  at  the 
thought  of  the  Ephesine  ordinations  being  conducted  at 
Constantinople.  They  entreated  the  Synod  that  they 
might  not  be  performed  in  the  Imperial  city.  The  city 
of  Ephesus  would  be  in  a  tumult ;  lit  would  be  the 
destruction  of  the  city.  The  Imperial  Commissioners 
then  put  the  question  to  the  Synod,  and  the  answer  came 
at  once,  that  the  ordination  should  take  place  *  in  the 
eparchy,'  i.e.  at  Ephesus  itself.  Diogenes  of  Cyzicum 
then  took  up  the  cudgels  for  Constantinople  and  pleaded 
custom.-  We  have  already  seen  that  the  Cyzicenes 
themselves  resisted  the  ordination  of  their  own  bishop 
at  Constantinople,  on  the  ground  of  a  custom  to  the  con- 
trary. Here  Diogenes  put  forward  the  prevalence  of  cus- 
tom in  favour  of  Constantinople.  Another  bishop  objected 
that  from  St.  Timothy  onwards  twenty-seven  bishops 
had  been  ordained  in  Ephesus  itself ;  to  which  Philip, 
the  cleric  of  Constantinople,  replied  that  the  'blessed 
John,'  i.e,  St.  Chrysostom,  when  Archbishop  of  Constan- 
tinople had  deposed  fifteen  bishops  in  Asia  and  ordained 

for  metropolitan  jurisdiction.     Cf.  De  Marca,  Diss.  Eccles.  de  Cmistant. 
Patriarch.  Institutione. 

'  Mansi,  vii.  292.  -'  Ihid. 


330  PEEVIOUS  ENCROACHMENTS 

others  in  their  stead  ;  and  that  he  had  ordained  Memnon 
in  the  Imperial  city  itself.  Aetius,  the  Archdeacon  of 
Constantinople,  produced  other  instances,  and  especially 
that  of  Basilius  (the  last  occupant  of  the  see  of  Ephesus 
before  Bassian  or  Stephen),  who  had  been  ordained  at 
Constantinople  by  Proclus,  and  in  this  act  the  Emperor 
Theodosius  and  Cyril  of  Alexandria  had  cooperated — a 
fact  which,  as  De  Marca  acutely  remarks,  indicated  a 
sense  of  some  need  of  artificial  support.  The  bishops, 
however,  at  Chalcedon  exclaimed  hereupon,  '  Let  the 
canons  prevail,'  i.e.  against  the  claim,  as  though  this 
action  of  Constantinople  was  not  covered  by  the  canons. 
And  now  for  the  first  time,  so  far  as  the  historical 
records  go,  the  clergy  of  Constantinople,  showing  their 
hand,  pleaded,  to  all  appearance,  the  third  canon  of 
381.  They  exclaimed  ;  *  Let  the  canons  of  the  150  fathers 
prevail :  let  not  the  privileges  ^  of  Constantinople  perish. 
Let  the  ordination  take  place  here  by  the  archbishop, 
according  to  custom.'  It  will  be  noticed  that,  after  all, 
they  had  to  fall  back  upon  custom  ;  they  could  not  rely 
simply  on  the  canon.  But  they  seem  to  plead  custom  as 
the  legitimate  interpreter  of  the  canon.  How  the  alleged 
custom  could  possibly  be  reconciled  with  the  second  canon 
of  381,  which  assigned  ordinations  to  the  Synod  of  the 
eparchy,  one  is  at  a  loss  to  conjecture.  In  fact  it  is 
impossible  to  reconcile  them.  The  Imperial  Commis- 
sioners were  naturally  dissatisfied ;  they  accordingly 
postponed  the  settlement  of  the  matter.^ 


*  Tpovdfxia  (Mansi,  vii.  293). 

2  T7J  e|7}s  TovTo  T€\€lws  TUTTwO^treTot  {ibid.  293)  = '  shall  be 
authoritatively  decided  to-morrow.'  Dr.  Bright  admits  that  in  this 
passage  Tvirdu  does  mean  '  authoritative  regulation  '  {Canons  of  tlie 
Councils,  p.  200). 


OF  *NEW  ROME'  331 

The  next  day  it  was  decided  that  neither  Bassian  nor 
Stephen  should  retain  the  see  of  Ephesus  but  that  both 
should  be  pensioned  off.  Paschasinus,  the  Papal  legate, 
thereupon  said  that  '  another  bishop  should  be  decided 
upon  according  to  the  canons.'  The  Commissioners, 
summing  up  the  synodical  decision,  quoting  Anatolius's 
witness  and  that  of  the  Papal  legates — the  one,  we  may 
presume,  because  of  his  connection  with  the  affair,  and 
the  other,  because  of  their  special  position  as  legates — 
decreed  the  ejection  of  both  Bassian  and  Stephen,  and 
their  maintenance  by  the  Church  of  Ephesus ;  and  then 
concluded  with  saying  that  '  another  bishop  shall  be 
ordained  according  to  the  canons  of  the  Church.'  This 
was  received  by  acclamation  as  a  pious  decree  {tvtjos). 
Thus  far,  then,  the  clergy  of  Constantinople  had  en- 
deavoured to  base  a  custom  on  such  instances  as  that 
of  Proclus's  ordination,  in  contravention  of  the  canons, 
both  of  Nicsea  and  of  Constantinople  in  381,  i.e.  of  the 
second  canon,  and  the  third  canon  of  that  Synod  had  not 
been  explicitly  quoted  in  favour  of  their  wishes. 

As  regards  Alexandria  and  Antioch,  Constantinople 
had  not  as  yet  claimed  to  act  upon  the  third  canon  of 
Constantinople.  That  canon,  indeed,  had  never  received 
the  adhesion  of  Alexandria,  whose  Bishop  Timothy  was 
absent  when  it  was  drawn  up.^  And  it  had  been  enacted 
when  the  Bishop  of  Antioch  was  in  a  peculiar  relation  to 
Constantinople.  Flavian  of  Antioch,  contrary  to  all  rules 
of  justice,  had  just  been  consecrated  by  Nectarius  to  the 
archbishopric  of  that  city,  and  was  neither  in  a  mood  nor 
in  a  position  to  resist  the  encroachment  on  the  honours  of 
his  see  which  that  canon  involved.  Domnus  of  Antioch 
had  also  recently  entered  into  a  compact  with  Proclus  of 

'  Cf.  Le  Quien,  Oriens'fihristianus,  i.  16. 


332  PREVIOUS   ENCROACHMENTS 

Constantinople,  which  enabled  the  latter  to  take  the  first 
place,  but  Dioscorus  wrote  indignantly  to  Domnus  as  one 
who  was  betraying  the  cause  of  Antioch,  which  he  could 
not  have  done  if  the  regulation  of  381  had  been  recognised 
as  a  canon  of  the  Church.^  Seventeen  years  after  the 
enactment  of  the  canon,  Theophilus  of  Alexandria  conse- 
crated St.  Chrysostom  to  Constantinople,^  and  then,  in 
his  place,  Arsacius  in  406.  And  in  all  the  subsequent 
troubles  between  Theophilus  and  Chrysostom  the  canon 
of  381  was  never  appealed  to  :  which  seems  inconceivable 
if  it  was  held  to  be  a  really  valid  decision,  seeing  that 
the  relation  of  the  sees  emerged  again  and  again.  At 
the  Synod  of  the  Oak,  Theophilus  did  not  preside,  to 
afford  an  appearance  of  equity.     He  voted  last. 

The  canon  had  thus,  as  a  canon,  collapsed  from  the 
outset.^  Dioscorus's  action  towards  Flavian  of  Constanti- 
nople, although  in  the  interests  of  heresy,  and  attended 
with  the  grossest  injustice,  implies,  nevertheless,  the 
absence  of  any  consciousness  that  the  third  canon  of  381 
had  conferred  a  real  precedence  over  Alexandria.'' 
Flavian  did  not  attempt  to  plead  such  precedence ;  in- 
deed, in  his  letter  to  Leo  he  even  spoke  of  having  always 
obeyed  Dioscorus  ;  ^  neither  did  the  Council  of  Chalcedon 
in  condemning  Dioscorus  suggest  that  the  primacy  of  the 
East  in  any  sense  belonged  to  Constantinople. 

Thus  between  381  and  451  the  third  canon  of  381 
had  been  a  dead  letter  so  far  as  Alexandria  and  Antioch 
were  concerned  ;  but  circumstances  had  led  to  Constan- 

'  Theodoret,  Ep.  86. 

2  '  A  certain  proof  of  his  [Theophilus's]  power  over  that  see,'  i.e. 
Constantinople  '  (Le  Quien,  ii.  337). 

8  '  Ab  initio  caducse,'  said  St.  Leo ;  he  is  referring  to  its  irregularity 
as  contravening  the  Nicene  canon. 

■»  Le  Quien,  ibid.  ^  Cf.  supra,  p.  174. 


OF   'NEW   ROME'  333 

tinople  exercising  a  good  deal  of  occasional  and  temporary 
authority  over  the  three  great  *  dioceses  '  of  Asia  Minor 
(so  to  call  it),  Pontus  and  Thrace.  But  in  the  Council  of 
Chalcedon,  Constantinople's  decision  had  in  one  case  been 
reversed,  and,  again,  its  desire  to  ordain  to  the  see  of 
Ephesus  had  not  been  granted.  A  third  case,  moreover, 
came  before  the  Council  which  must  have  been  equally 
distasteful  to  Constantinople,  connected  again  with 
ordinations.  In  the  thirteenth  session  the  Bishop  of 
Nicomedia  was  supported  by  the  bishops  at  the  Council 
in  his  metropolitical  rights  in  the  province  of  Bithynia 
as  against  the  Bishop  of  Nicaea,  the  quarrel  between 
them  turning  on  their  respective  rights  to  ordain  a 
bishop  to  Basilinopolis  in  that  province.  Hereupon 
Aetius,  the  Archdeacon  of  Constantinople,  suddenly 
stepped  forward  and  put  in  a  claim  for  the  Imperial  see, 
saying  that  it  had  been  itself  accustomed  to  ordain  to 
Basilinopolis  or  else  by  letters  dimissory  to  permit  others 
to  ordain.  But  the  Synod  at  once  exclaimed,  as  in  the 
previous  instances  :  *  Let  the  canons  prevail.  Let  the 
canons  obtain  their  due.'  The  Imperial  Commissioners 
accordingly  pronounced  in  favour  of  Eunomius,  Bishop 
of  Nicomedia,  and  then  went  on  to  say  that  '  whatever  is 
suitable  for  the  throne  of  Constantinople  concerning 
ordinations  in  the  "  eparchies  " '  (i.e.  the  three '  dioceses  ' 
of  Asia  Minor,  Pontus  and  Thrace)  '  shall  be  examined  in 
its  proper  order  before  the  Synod.'  Eunomius  publicly 
thanked  the  Synod  for  keeping  to  the  canons,  and  at  the 
same  time  in  a  somewhat  cringing  tone  averred  his 
affection  for  the  Archbishop  of  Constantinople.^ 

Now   it   must   be    remembered   that   in   the  fourth 
session   the    Imperial   Commissioners  had    asked    the 

'  Mansi,  vii.  92. 


334  PREVIOUS  ENCROACHMENTS 

bishops  in  full  Synod  to  settle  two  questions — first, 
*  whether  it  was  lawful  for  Anatolius  the  most  holy 
Archbishop  of  Constantinople  to  send  an  excommunica- 
tion to  the  most  reverend  Bishop  Photius  and  to  order 
that  certain  Churches  in  the  province  should  be  taken 
from  him  ;  and  [secondly]  whether  he  ought  to  call  the 
assembly  of  bishops  in  the  Imperial  city  a  Synod.' 
Neither  of  these  questions  was  answered,  so  far  as  their 
essential  points  were  concerned.  It  was  decided  that 
Anatolius  ought  not  to  have  condemned  a  man  in  his 
absence.  And  the  second  question  was  left  severely 
alone.  Thus  a  slur  had  been  cast  upon  Constantinople's 
method  of  action  at  its  core,  viz.  its  use  of  the  ^  Eesident 
Synod '  to  determine  such  matters  at  all.  And  now  the 
Council  had  withdrawn  Basilinopolis,  in  the  '  diocese  '  of 
Pontus,  from  the  jurisdiction  of  Constantinople,  and  had 
ordered  that  the  whole  question  of  her  rights  as  to 
ordinations  in  the  provinces  of  those  three  great  dioceses, 
or  eparchies,  should  be  regularly  examined.^ 

It  is  a  singular  and  unfortunate  fact  that  the  records 
of  the  next  session  are  missing.  Had  they  been  to  the 
credit  of  Constantinople,  we  can  hardly  suppose  that  she 
would  have  allowed  them  to  disappear.  But  so  it  is. 
We  have  only  a  list  of  canons,  twenty-seven  of  which  are 
supposed  by  the  Ballerini  and  others  to  have  been  enacted 

'  Dr.  Bright  [Rovian  See,  p.  197)  says  that  '  the  Council  had  not 
refused  to  call  the  Sojourning  Synod  a  Synod,  but  simply  blamed  it  for 
condemning  a  bishop  unheard.'  It  did  more.  It  refrained  from  answering 
the  question  as  to  whether  the  '  Sojourning  Synod  '  was  a  Synod.  And 
it  at  once  quoted  the  fourth  Nicene  canon  (Mansi,  vii.  93),  which  decreed 
that  bishops  should  be  ordained  *  in  the  eparchy  ' — a  sufficiently  plain 
rebuff  for  Constantinople,  which  was  thus  declared  to  be  wrong  in  two 
ways — first,  in  condemning  a  bishop  unheard,  and,  secondly,  in  inter- 
fering in  the  province  of  another. 


OF   'NEW  KOME'  335 

in  an  earlier  session,  while  the  twenty-eighth  was  not 
even  entered  as  a  canon  of  Chalcedon  in  the  Greek 
collections,  until  much  later  on.  But  it  is  this  twenty- 
eighth  canon  which  has  been  the  sheet-anchor  of  the 
Anglican  position  :  with  what  justice,  we  shall  now  see. 
What  we  know  of  it  is  gathered  from  the  record  of  the 
Papal  legates'  protest,  and  of  the  struggle  that  ensued, 
in  the  session  which  followed  upon  its  enactment. 


CHAPTEE   IX 

THE    BYZANTINE    PLOT  :     OR,    THE    TWENTY-EIGHTH    CANON 

The  circumstances  under  which  Constantinople  made  her 
supreme  effort  to  gain  synodical  sanction  for  the  position 
she  was  assuming  over  the  dioceses  of  Asia,  Pontus  and 
Thrace  were  sufficiently  favourable  to  ensure  success,  so 
far  as  the  bishops  there  were  concerned.  The  three  or 
four  days  assigned  by  the  Emperor  for  the  bishops'  stay 
in  Chalcedon  had  passed,  and  they  had  left  by  the 
hundred.  Hardly  more  than  two  hundred  out  of  the 
original  six  hundred  remained.  And  among  those  that 
lingered  behind  there  was  not  one  that  might  not  be 
counted  on  for  either  assent  or  silence. 

Of  the  two  '  greater  sees  '  Alexandria  was  vacant,  and 
Antioch  was  occupied  by  a  partisan  of  Anatolius,  to 
whom  he  owed  his  irregular  elevation,  which  had  been 
pardoned  by  Kome  only  (as  Leo  said)  '  for  the  sake  of 
peace.'  ^ 

Constantinople,  therefore,  had  nothing  to  fear  from 
these.  She  only  needed  a  lack  of  scrupulous  fairness  on 
her  own  part  to  enable  her  to  press  the  matter  to  a 
successful  issue  under  these  favourable  circumstances. 
But  further,  she  could  count  upon  at  least  the  silence  of 

'  '  Studio  pacis.' 


THE   BYZANTINE   PLOT  OR  THE   28TH   CANON     337 

another  leading  prelate,  viz.  Juvenal  of  Jerusalem,  who 
had  himself  just  gained  the  object  of  his  ambition  for  the 
last  twenty  years  in  the  compromise  by  which  he  had 
wrested  three  provinces  from  Antioch.      He  at  any  rate 
was  not  in  a  position  to  complain  of  any  illicit  stretch  of 
jurisdiction  on  the  part  of  another.      And  Juvenal  and 
Anatolius  had  a  further  bond  in  that  both  had   come 
under  the   influence   of   Dioscorus   and  coquetted  with 
Eutychianism.     Then  the  Bishop  of  Heraclea,  the  Pri- 
mate of  Thrace,  was  absent,  and  he  was  very  closely 
concerned  in  the  project  that  Constantinople  had  before 
her   of   extending   her   actual  jurisdiction   as   well    as 
securing  the  semblance  of  synodical  sanction  for  titular 
precedence.     This  primate  was  represented  by  Lucian, 
who  was  so  friendly  to  Anatolius  that  he  was  sent  by 
him  to  Eome  on  this  very  matter.      Ephesus,  again,  of 
supreme  importance,  as  one  of  the  exarchies  to  be  robbed 
of  its  autonomy,  was  vacant,  Bassian  and  Stephen  hav- 
ing been  deposed.     Thalassius  of  Caesarea  m  Cappadocia 
was  there,  but  did  not  subscribe,  and  he  was  Exarch  of 
Pontus  ;  so  that  no  one  of  the  three  dioceses  or  eparchies 
was  properly   represented   among  the  signataries  ;  and 
yet  it  was  exactly  these  '  dioceses  '  that  were  concerned  in 
the  matter.     The   Illyrians   were   not   there,   not  even 
Thessalonica,  neither  was  Ancyra,  Corinth,  Nicomedia, 
Cos,  nor  Iconium,  all  of  them  important  centres.    In  fact, 
the  little  knot  of  bishops  whom  Constantinople  gathered 
round  herself  by  various  means  could  not  by  any  stretch 
of  language  be  called  a  representative  ecclesiastical  body, 
for   the   purpose   of   enacting   a   canon  concerning  the 
jurisdiction  of  Constantinople.      Moreover  they  had  no 
leave  from  Eome  to  discuss  the  question  now  forced  upon 
the  bishops  by  Constantinople ;  it  was  no  part  of  the 


338  THE  BYZANTINE   PLOT 

Council's  programme.     It  was  simply  a  plot  against  the 
Church's  order,  with  hardly  a  name  that  would  command 
the    confidence    of   the   Church  except   the   impetuous 
Eusebius   of  Dorylseum.     The  legates,  though  pressed 
to  attend,  refused.     The  Imperial  Commissioners  were 
also  asked  to  assist  at  the  session,  but  they  also  refused, 
though  they  gave  their  permission  for  the  matter  to  be 
mooted.^     There  was  not  a  single  Western  bishop  present. 
But   these   '  astute '    Orientals,   as  the   African   bishop 
Facundus  called  them,  drew  up  a  canon  which  flung 
the  Nicene  settlement  as  to  precedence  to  the  winds,  and 
assigned,  on  the  one  hand,  the  first  place  in  the  East  to 
Constantinople,  and  on  the  other  hand  gave  her  jurisdic- 
tion over  '  Asia,'  Thrace  and  Pontus.      The  exarchs  of 
these  regions  were  to  be  deprived  of  their  position  as 
left  to  them  by  the  Nicene  fathers,  and  Constantinople 
was  to  be  not  only  New  Eome  in  the  civil  order,  but 
in  the  ecclesiastical  hierarchy  was  to  stand  second  to 
Eome  in  point  of  titular  precedence,  and  at  the  same 
time  to  receive  an  enormous  extension  of  her  jurisdiction 
in  the  East.      She  had  hoped  and  tried  to  gain  the  con- 
firmation and  ordination  of  the  provincial  bishops  as 
well  as  of  the  metropolitans,  but  owing  to  the  opposition 
of  some  metropolitans  she  failed  in  this  part  of  her  project. 
On  the  following  day  the  Papal  legates  demanded  an 
explanation  of  what  had  been  done  in  their  absence. 

'  TrapeKaXdaafiev  rovs  iiricKSTTOvs  robs  airh  'Pcvfirjs  ....  irapririja-avTO 
avqviyKafXiv  KoX  [sic]  eVi  tV  ufieTtpav  /xeyaAoirpeneiav  (Mansi,  vii. 
428).  Dr.  Bright  in  his  criticism  {Roman  See,  p.  198)  on  the  first 
edition  of  my  book  on  The  Primitive  Church,  &c.  ignores  the  force  of 
the  KoX,  which  shows  that  the  bishops  asked  the  Commissioners  to 
attend,  but  that  they  refused— Hefele  thinks,  from  diplomatic  con- 
siderations. They  evidently  thought  that  the  bishops  were  skating  on 
thin  ice. 


OR  THE   TWENTY-EIGHTH   CANON  339 

They  had  absented  themselves  on  the  technical  ground 
that  after  the  definition  of  faith  had  been  drawn  up,  and 
the  matter  of  the  lapsed  bishops  dealt  with,  their  com- 
mission ended.  But  it  turned  out  that  they  had  also 
received  orders  from  Rome  to  oppose  any  attempt  at 
altering  the  relations  of  bishops  on  the  ground  of  the 
civil  status  of  their  sees.^  Leo  was  already  well  aware 
of  the  ambitious  projects  of  Constantinople. 

Aetius,  the  archdeacon,  now  did  his  best  to  purge  the 
action  of  the  bishops  of  its  irregularity.  He  said  that  it 
must  be  owned  that  the  matters  of  faith  had  been  decided 
in  a  fitting  way,  but  pleaded  that  it  was  customary  to 
take  in  hand  other  necessary  matters ;  that  they  had 
asked  the  legates  to  be  present,  but  without  success,  and 
that  they  had  received  the  permission  of  the  Imperial 
Commissioners  to  proceed  with  the  business.  The  legates, 
however,  maintained,  and  were  probably  justified  in 
maintaining,  that  the  bishops  had  signed  in  fear,  and, 
indeed,  their  antecedents  and  the  present  position  of 
those  that  signed,  fully  justify  such  an  assertion,  how- 
ever little  some  of  them  may  have  realised  it ;  they  said 
also  that  the  proposed  canon  contravened  the  Nicene 
settlement ;  that  it  was  professedly  grounded  on  canons 
which  had  not  been  enrolled  among  those  of  the 
Church  ;  ^  and,  lastly,  that  if  Constantinople  had  been 
benefiting  by  the  said  canon  up  till  now,  what  need  of 
anything  further  ? — and  if  she  had  not,  why  did  she  now 
apply  for  sanction  for  that  which  is  an  infringement  of 
the  canons  ?^reasoning  which  was  unanswerable. 

In  consequence  of  this  mention  of  the  canons,  the 

'  For  an  answer  to  Dr.   Bright's   accusation   against  the  legates 
{Roman  See,  p.  198)  see  note  at  the  end  of  this  chapter. 
-  '  Non  conscripti,'  i.e.  the  third  of  Constantinople. 

z  2 


340  THE   BYZANTINE   PLOT 

Commissioners  requested  that  each  side  should  read  those 
on  which  they  relied.  The  legates  accordingly  read  the 
sixth  canon  of  Nicsea,  in  which  Alexandria  and  Antioch, 
and  not  Constantinople,  came  next  to  Kome.  They  also 
read  the  seventh  canon,  which  by  anticipation  reproved 
Juvenal.  Aetius  is  then  supposed  to  have  produced  first 
a  slightly  different  version  of  the  same  canon,  and  then 
(omitting  the  seventh  of  Nicaea)  the  third  of  Constan- 
tinople was  read.  But  this  is  in  the  highest  degree  im- 
probable, since  his  supposed  reading  of  that  version  of 
the  sixth  canon  makes  nothing  for  the  point  at  issue. 
The  rise  of  Constantinople  took  place  after  the  Council  of 
Nicaea ;  no  one  pretends,  or  pretended,  that  the  Nicene 
canons  in  any  way  assisted  Constantinople  in  its  present 
aims ;  on  the  contrary,  they  were  dead  against  the  new 
canon.  Constantinople  was  then  an  inferior  see,  and  left 
so  by  the  Nicene  fathers.  It  was  on  the  third  canon  of 
Constantinople  that  these  bishops  took  their  stand.  The 
Nicene  canon  was  their  difficulty.^  Indeed,  in  one  of  the 
oldest  versions  of  the  Acts  of  Chalcedon  that  we  possess 
the  production  of  the  sixth  canon  by  Aetius  does  not 
appear.2  There  are  also  other  indications  that  the  text 
has  been  tampered  with  here  ;  for  between  the  supposed 
recitation  of  the  sixth  canon  and  that  of  the  third  of 
Constantinople  occurs  the  statement  that  '  the  same 
secretary  read  from  the  same  codex  the  synodicon  of  the 

•  Dr.  Bright  thinks  that  '  if  the  legates'  version  of  the  canon  was 
alone  read,  then  the  Greek  text '  (he  ought  to  have  said  the  Constantino- 
politan  version)  '  was  practically  thrown  overboard '  {Roman  See,  p. 
203).  But  why  ?  Each  was  to  read  the  canons  on  which  each  relied, 
not  those  on  which  the  other  relied.  The  legates  did  not  rely  on  the 
opening  words,  but  the  latter  part,  which  is  admittedly  genuine. 

-  The  Codex  Julianus,  now  called  Parisiensis.  Baluze  first  noticed 
this,  and  has  been  followed  by  the  Ballerini. 


OK   THE   TWENTY-EIGHTH  CANON  341 

second  Synod,'  which  Mansi  rightly  transferred  to  the 
margin,  as  an  impossible  statement  to  have  occurred  in 
the  original.  The  Council  of  Constantinople  was  not 
called  '  the  second  Synod  '  at  that  time — not  until  in  the 
compilations  of  canons  the  four  (Ecumenical  Councils 
came  to  be  separated  from  the  local  Councils,  which  took 
place  later  on.  The  expression,  therefore,  belongs  to  a 
later  period  than  the  original  of  the  Council  of  Chalcedon. 
Accordingly,  Eusticus,  who  had  before  him  very  early 
manuscripts,  omits  this  whole  sentence,  although  (incon- 
sistently enough)  the  sixth  canon  appears  in  his  manu- 
script. The  insertion,  therefore,  had  been  made  before 
his  time,  doubtless,  as  has  been  suggested  above,  by  a 
Greek  scribe,  who,  seeing  a  Greek  version  of  the  sixth 
canon  in  the  margin,  put  there  as  a  note  by  some  previous 
scribe,  inserted  it  in  the  text,  and  some  later  copyist 
inserted  the  remark  about  the  second  Synod.  x\nd  most 
people  will  feel  with  Hef ele  that  if  two  confiictmg  versions 
of  the  Nicene  canon  had  been  read,  some  remark  must 
have  been  made  on  such  a  subject.^ 

What,  however,  is  of  greater  importance  is  the  conclu- 
sion which  the  Imperial  Commissioners  now  drew  from  the 
whole  discussion.  The  legates  had  quoted  the  sixth  and 
seventh  Nicene  canons,  beginning  '  Eome  has  always  held 
the  primacy,'  and  had  read  onwards  about  Alexandria, 

'  Ballerini,  De  Aniiq.  Collect.  Canonum,  Part  I.  cap.  vi.  8.  Dr. 
Bright  {Notes  on  the  Canons,  &c.,  1892,  p.  227)  refers  to  the  expression 
'  oecumenical,'  meaning  '  of  the  whole  East,'  used  by  the  Council  of  382 
in  reference  to  the  Council  of  381  ;  but  this  would  not  account  for  the 
expression  '  second  Synod,'  which  only  came  into  use  when  the  canons 
were  collected  in  the  way  stated  in  the  text.  Cf.  Ballerini,  0pp.  Leon. 
iii.  p.  xxxvii ;  Dc  Antiq.  Coll.  I.  vi.  §  8.  The  reference  to  Theodoret 
which  Dr.  Bright  gives  adds  nothing  to  the  authorities.  It  only  con- 
tains the  letter  of  the  Council  of  382. 


342  THE  BYZANTINE   PLOT 

Antioch  and  Jerusalem,  this  latter  portion  being  that  on 
which  they  relied.  The  Archdeacon  of  Constantinople 
had  had  the  third  canon  of  Constantinople  read  with  a 
long  addition  (which  was  dishonestly  joined  on)  placing 
Asia,  Pontus  and  Thrace  under  the  jurisdiction  of  the 
Imperial  city.  Several  of  the  bishops  had  taken  the  side 
of  Constantinople,  and  expressed  their  perfect  willingness 
to  subordinate  their  sees  to  that  of  the  imperial  city  ; 
Eusebius  of  Ancyra,  however,  while  he  proclaimed  his 
willingness  to  do  the  same,  protested  against  the 
pecuniary  exactions  with  which  this  subordination  had 
been  accompanied.  The  Commissioners,  however,  de- 
cided that  two  things  were  plain  from  the  Acts  and 
depositions  :  first,  that  the  primacy  (irpcoTsla — the  very 
word  used  in  the  sixth  Nicene  canon,  as  cited  by  the 
Papal  legate)  belonged  to  Old  Eome.  About  this  there 
had  been  no  question,  and  it  is  obvious  that  the  Imperial 
Commissioners  could  decide  nothing  about  that.  But, 
secondly,  they  decided  that  New  Eome  ought  to  have — 
not  a  primacy  {irpwrsla)  such  as  Eome  had,  which  the 
whole  history  of  the  Council  proves  to  have  involved 
jurisdiction  in  the  minds  of  all  the  bishops — but  the 
same  honorary  privileges  {irpsa^ela)  as  Eome,  besides  her 
primacy  and  as  a  consequence  of  it,  also  possessed. 
Eome,  they  had  said,  possessed  two  things — honorary 
precedence  and  primacy  ;  Constantinople  ought  to  possess 
in  the  East  that  honorary  precedence  which  Eome 
possessed  over  the  whole  Church.' 

'  irph  irduTwv  fiep  to  wpurela  Koi  Tr]v  e^aipeTOU  ri/x^v  Kara  robs 
Kav6vas  rw  rris  TrpeafivriSos  'Pw/irjs  B^ocpiK^crrdrcf  dpyicirirrKSir^  (pvXdT- 
reffdai.  I  do  not  see  how,  in  view  of  this  undisputed  original,  it 
can  be  maintained,  as  it  is  by  so  many  Anglican  writers,  that  the 
legates'  version    was  a   forgery.      The   Council   clearly  accepted  the 


OR  THE   TWENTY-EIGHTH  CANON  343 

Thus  Constantinople  laid  the  foundation  of  her 
desired  patriarchate  over  the  East,  and  supplied  the 
premiss  from  which  Photius  was  one  day  to  draw  the 
conclusion  in  claiming  universal  jurisdiction. 

It  is  difficult  to  understand  how  Canon  Gore  could 
manage  to  see  '  Rome's  self-assertion  '  at  the  bottom  of 
all  this.  Canon  Bright  also  reproduces  with  approval 
the  sentence  in  which  Canon  Gore  makes  the  strange  state- 
ment, that  it  is  *  more  than  probable  \_sic]  that  the  self- 
assertion  of  Rome  excited  the  jealousy  of  the  East,  and 
thus  Eastern  bishops  secretly  felt  that  the  cause  of 
Constantinople  was  theirs.'      It  must  have  been   very 

Papal  legate's  quotation  as  expressing  the  truth  (c/.  Appendix  I.). 
TO  Trpwreio,  primacy,  and  irpecr^e'La  ttjs  rifiris,  honorary  precedence,  are 
distinguished  throughout.  Primacy  in  general  is  assigned  to  Rome 
in  the  legates'  version  of  the  Nicene  canon.  It  is  assigned  to  Alex- 
andria and  Antioch  over  their  respective  restricted  jurisdictions  in 
the  same  canon,  and  to  the  other  eparchies.  Honorary  precedence, 
aKoXovOia  rfjs  Tt^ufjs,  is  assigned  to  Jerusalem.  The  28th  canon 
now  in  dispute  said  that  *  the  [Nicene]  fathers  naturally  rendered  pre- 
cedence to  the  see  of  older  Eome  on  account  of  the  Imperial  position 
of  that  city  '  (Mansi,  vii.  428).  They  did  not  say  '  gave,'  nor  '  gave  the 
primacy.'  But  they  said  aTroSeSw/cao-i  = '  rendered.'  It  is  the  word  used  in 
Matt.  xxii.  for  '  Render  unto  God  the  things  that  are  God's.'  It  was 
presently  used  in  the  same  session  by  Eusebius  of  Ancyra  for  rendering 
in  the  sense  of  paying  up  what  was  owing :  iroKKriv  6\kt)u  aireSooKa 
(Mansi,  vii.  452).  The  Trpea^ela,  rank,  or  dignity,  rendered  to  Rome  was 
the  result  of  to  irpcoTela  =  her  primacy  as  the  See  of  Peter.  '  The  150 
fathers,'  says  the  28th  canon,  •  assigned '  (airevei/jiav,  not  '  rendered ') 
'  equal  honours  [i.e.  in  the  East]  to  the  see  of  New  Rome.'  It  desired  to 
confirm  the  3rd  canon  of  381,  which  decreed  that  the  Bishop  of 
Constantinople  should  have  honorary  precedence  (Trpea/Sera  ttjs  tiij.7js) 
after  the  Bishop  of  Rome.  Thus  the  primacy  of  Rome  was  never  in 
question,  but  only  the  honorary  precedence  that  resulted  from  the 
primacy.  The  latter  was  mentioned  in  the  legates'  version  of  the  6th 
Nicene  canon,  and  conceded  as  a  matter  of  course.  Constantinople 
wanted  to  usurp  honorary  precedence  over  Alexandria  and  Antioch  and 
effective  jurisdiction  over  the  '  dioceses  '  of  Asia,  Pontus  and  Thrace. 


344  THE   BYZANTINE   PLOT 

'  secretly '  felt,  for  there  is  not  a  solitary  allusion  in  their 
speeches  to  such  an  idea,  while  they  are  from  end  to  end 
of  the  Council  brimful  of  acknowledgments  of  the  service 
which  Leo  had  rendered  to  the  Church  of  God.  So  far 
as  the  records  go,  the  bishops,  whatever  they  *  secretly 
felt,'  were  open  in  their  avowals  that,  to  use  their  own 
words,  *  God  has  given  the  Synod  an  invulnerable 
champion  against  every  error  in  the  person  of  the 
Eoman  bishop,  who,  like  the  ardent  Peter,  desires  to  lead 
everyone  to  God.'  (Synod's  letter  to  Marcian.')  Pope 
Nicholas  I.  said  to  Photius,  of  the  crisis  which  arose  in 
consequence  of  the  Latrocinium,  '  If  the  great  Leo  had 
not  been  divinely  moved  to  open  his  mouth,  the  Christian 
religion  would  have  perished  outright.' 

Canon  Gore's  suggestion  bears,  indeed,  no  serious 
relation  to  the  facts.  It  may  be  fairly  said  of  it,  as 
Canon  Bright  has  said  of  a  contention  of  the  Ballerini, 
mentioned  above,  that  '  nothing  but  an  intelligible  bias 
could  account  for  a  suggestion  so  futile.' ^  The  'self- 
assertion  '  was  all  on  the  part  of  Constantinople. 

The  legates  entered  their  protest  on  the  technical 
ground  that  the  Apostolic  See  had  not  been  consulted  as 
to  the  discussion  of  this  question,^  and  that  the  proposal 
was  a  violation  of  the  Nicene  canons.  They  asked  that 
the  proceedings  of  the  previous  day  be  cancelled,  or  else 
that  their  opposition  be  recorded,  '  so  that  we  may  know 
what  we  ought  to  report  to  the  Apostolic  man,  the  Pope 
of  the  Universal  Church,  so  that  he  himself  may  pass 
sentence  on  the  injury  done  to  his  see  or  on  the  overthrow 

'  Quoted  in  the  '  Collectio  Lacensis,'  Acta  Concilii  Vaticani,  vii.  449. 
2  Bright's  Notes  on  the  Councils,  p.  148. 

'  This  seems  to  be  the  meaning  of  the  legates'  words.  Cf.  Leon. 
Ep.  119,  5. 


OR  THE   TWENTY-EIGHTH  CANON  345 

of  the  canons ' — the  injury  done  to  the  Holy  See  by 
debating  the  question  without  its  consent,  and  the  over- 
throw of  the  canons  by  displacing  Alexandria  in  favour 
of  Constantinople. 

In  spite,  however,  of  the  legates'  protest  the  bishops 
voted  the  canon,  the  Commissioners  calling  them  '  the 
whole  Synod,'  i.e.  all  except  the  Papal  legates. 

The  matter  could  not,  of  course,  stand  there.  Com- 
paratively speaking,  as  we  have  seen,  they  were  but  a 
handful  of  bishops,  most  of  them  of  sees  grouped  round 
Constantinople,  and  their  leaders  far  from  enjoying  the 
esteem  of  the  Catholic  world.  Their  canon  was  the  work 
*  rather  of  Greek  sophists  than  of  Fathers  of  the  Church.'  ^ 
They  had  adroitly  tacked  on  their  new  claim  over  three 
large  eparchies  (which  by  the  Nicene  Council  had  been 
left  autonomous)  to  the  third  canon  of  Constantinople, 
so  that  the  new  and  old  parts  read  like  one  :  in  which,  as 
Canon  Bright  remarks,  they  were  more  '  astute  than 
candid.' 

The  matter,  then,  could  not  rest  there.  Indeed  these 
bishops  themselves  did  not  entertain  the  idea  that  their 
act  was  final ;  and  accordingly  they  set  to  work  to  gain 
a  favourable  decision  from  Leo,  in  spite  of  his  legates' 
protest.  They  had  the  Emperor  on  their  side,  and  the 
game  was  worth  pursuing  ;  for  even  if  they  lost  in  the 
present,  they  had  taken  a  step  forward  for  the  future. 

It  is  certainly  astonishing  that  writers  who  are  so 
full  of  Home's  supposed  '  self-assertion  '  and  '  exorbitant 
claims '  should  not  see  the  worthlessness  of  what  these 
comparatively  few  bishops  said  and  did,  two-thirds  of 
the  bishops  of  the  original  Synod  being  absent,  and  the 
Presidents  of  the  same  refusing  their  assent.     Yet  it  is 

'  Rohrbacher,  Hist.  iv.  539. 


346  THE  BYZANTINE  PLOT 

the  case  that  the  most  universally  accepted  writers 
among  Anglicans  have  for  the  last  three  centuries 
taken  their  stand  on  this  canon,  and  seen  in  it  an  ac- 
ceptance, hij  the  Church,  of  the  principle  that  Eome  owed 
all  her  privileges,  not  to  her  relationship  to  the  Apostle 
Peter,  and  through  him  to  our  Lord's  institution,  but  to 
her  secular  position  as  the  capital  of  the  Eoman  Empire. 
How,  it  may  be  asked,  can  the  Church  be  identified  with 
these  Eastern  adventurers,  men  whose  antecedents  were 
in  almost  every  case  sufficiently  suspicious  to  deprive 
their  judgment  on  such  a  matter  of  half  its  value? 
Anatolius,  originally  secretary  to  Dioscorus,  and  waver- 
ing in  the  Eutychian  troubles ;  Juvenal,  one  of  the 
leaders  at  the  Kobber-Synod,  and  himself  involved  in  an 
ambitious  scheme  for  the  stretch  of  his  jurisdiction ; 
Maximus,  who  had  been  irregularly  ordained  by 
Anatolius  himself,  his  ordination  only  sanctioned  by  Leo 
for  the  sake  of  peace  ;  Alexandria  vacant ;  the  Exarch  of 
Ephesus,  so  deeply  concerned,  not  there ;  and  the  rest, 
most  of  them,  in  no  position  to  withstand  the  pressure 
which  the  legates,  who  knew  the  position  of  matters 
well,  asserted  had  been  put  upon  them  by  Constanti- 
nople— how  can  these  be  taken  to  represent  the 
Church  ? 

It  may  be  asked  how  did  the  Emperor  Marcian  come 
to  second  Constantinople's  ambition  ?  Perhaps  the  true 
answer  is,  that  he  saw  in  the  proposed  arrangement 
certain  conveniences  which  commended  it  to  his  mind 
from  a  political  point  of  view.*  And  it  was  undoubtedly 
the  case  that  the  proposed  arrangement  had  much  in  its 
favour,  and  might  have  passed  muster  had  it  not  con- 
flicted with  a  higher  principle  of  action.    As  things  then 

'  Cf.  Hefele,  in  loco. 


OR  THE   TWENTY-EIGHTH  CANON  347 

stood,  Constantinople  having  become  the  actual  centre 
of  life  in  the  East,  it  was  certainly  a  natural  position  for 
a  politician  to  adopt,  that  the  ecclesiastical  apparatus 
should  adapt  itself  to  the  new  circumstances,  and  that 
the  London  of  the  East  should  become  the  root  and 
womb  of  the  Church  in  the  future.  But  Marcian  did  not 
see  that  another  principle  was  being  introduced  which, 
if  admitted,  must  have  been  subversive  of  the  Church's 
spiritual  and  supernatural  order,  as,  indeed,  it  proved  to 
be  under  Peter  the  Czar.  When  Marcian  found  that  St. 
Leo  was  opposed  to  the  arrangement,  he  dropped  his 
patronage  of  the  scheme.  But  the  bishops  braced  them- 
selves to  the  work  of  persuading  Leo  that  their  canon  was 
harmless  and  worthy  of  that  sanction  which  they  felt  to 
be  all  important. 


Note  on  De.  Beight's  Accusation  against  the  Legates. 

Dr.  Bright  accuses  the  Papal  legates  roundly  of  telling  a 
falsehood  at  the  fifteenth  session.  '  Their  former  reply,  then, 
was  a  falsehood  which  had  served  its  purpose '  {Roman  See, 
p.  198).  Now  the  legates  were  asked  in  the  fifteenth  session 
to  take  a  share  in  (Kotvcovou?  ytyveo-Oat)  certain  matters  which 
the  Church  of  Constantinople  said  that  she  had  to  transact 
(8ta7r(oa|ao-0ai),  without  mentioning  exactly  what  they  were. 
The  legates,  however,  knew  perfectly  well  that  the  business 
was  concerned  with  the  jurisdiction  of  Constantinople  in  the 
matter  of  ordinations  in  the  three  '  dioceses  '  of  Asia,  Pontus 
and  Thrace,  for  it  was  of  this  that  the  Commissioners  had  said 
that  the  rights  of  the  see  of  Constantinople  must  be  investi- 
gated. They  accordingly  '  refused,  saying  that  they  had  re- 
ceived no  such  orders  '  (Mansi,  vii.  428).  This  was,  according 
to  Dr.  Bright,  their  falsehood.  But  it  was  absolutely  true. 
For  they  afterwards,  in  the  sixteenth  session,  read  to  the 


o48  THE   BYZANTINE   PLOT 

Synod  the  instruction  which  they  had  received,  viz.  *  Suffer 
not  the  constitution  of  the  holy  fathers  to  be  violated  or 
diminished  by  any  rashness,  preserving  in  every  way  the 
dignity  of  our  person '  {i.e.  of  Leo)  *  in  yourselves  whom  we 
have  sent  in  our  stead ;  and  if  it  should  happen  that  any, 
trusting  in  the  power  of  their  cities,  shall  have  attempted  any 
usurpation,  repudiate  this  with  proper  constancy  '  (ibid.  443). 
There  was,  therefore,  not  the  remotest  approach  to  a  false- 
hood in  what  they  said.  Their  instructions  gave  them  no 
leav^  to  enter  upon  the  discussion  of  matters  such  as  the 
relationship  between  Alexandria,  Antioch  and  Constanti- 
nople, nor  the  subjugation  of  those  '  other  eparchies,'  men- 
tioned in  the  sixth  Nicene  canon,  whose  mutual  relationship 
had  been  there  settled.  This  was  a  recognised  principle, 
laid  down  in  regard  to  the  matter  of  Maximus  in  a  subse- 
quent letter  by  Leo  {Ep.  119).  Accordingly,  when  the  affair 
of  Constantinopolitan  jurisdiction  was  thus  brought  on,  they 
refused  to  have  anything  to  do  with  its  discussion  :  they  had 
no  orders  to  take  part  in  it,  as  they  said  with  the  strictest 
accuracy.  Celestine  gave  definite  orders  to  his  legates  not 
to  take  part  in  discussions,  but  to  give  their  judgment  on 
the  sentences  of  the  bishops  in  the  Council  of  Ephesus  ;  and 
the  legates  here  could  truthfully  say  that  they  also  had  no 
orders  to  enter  upon  a  discussion  on  such  a  matter.  But 
they  had  orders  to  repudiate  certain  attempts  at  usurpation, 
if  they  should  be  made.  They  were  made,  and,  accordingly, 
when  the  28th  canon  was  read  at  the  next  session,  having 
been  carried  by  a  mere  remnant  of  bishops,  they  repudiated 
it,  as  Leo  told  them  to  do.  They  protested  against  it, 
appealing  to  the  judgment  of  '  the  bishop  who  presides  over 
the  whole  Church '  (Mansi,  vii.  453).  Dr.  Bright  was  bound 
before  he  accused  men  who  had  boldly  stood  up  for  the 
foundation  of  our  Christian  faith,  and  had  been  appointed  for 
the  oflQce  of  presiding  in  place  of  Leo,  to  produce  some  in- 
structions bidding  the  legates  take  a  share  in  the  transaction 
of  business  (Kotvwvovs  ytyi/ecrflat  twv  TrpaTTOfxevwv — the  present 


OR   THE   TWENTY-EIGHTH  CANON  349 

tense)  which  had  not  been  allotted  to  the  Council.  An  order 
to  oppose  any  violation  of  the  Nicene  settlement  is  not  an 
instruction  to  take  part  in  a  meeting  improperly  held  for  the 
obvious  purpose  of  promoting  such  a  violation.  Until  Dr. 
Bright  can  produce  such  an  instruction,  he  stands  convicted 
of  a  false  accusation.  His  translation  is  grievously  mislead- 
ing ;  the  legates  did  not  say,  as  he  makes  them  say,  that 
*  they  had  no  instructions  about  such  a  matter,'  i.e.,  as  he 
applies  it,  the  subject  of  Constantinopolitan  jurisdiction. 
They  said  that  '  they  had  no  such  orders,'  i.e.  as  to  be  sharers 
{kolvwvovs)  in  the  transactions  of  a  particular  meeting  held  to 
promote  it  by  a  comparative  handful  of  bishops  under  sinister 
influence.  It  would  be  possible  to  construct  a  falsehood  out 
of  the  legates'  speech  as  mistranslated  by  Dr.  Bright ;  but  it 
is  not  possible  to  invent  one  from  the  words  correctly  trans- 
lated and  applied  to  their  actual  context.  It  is  to  be  regretted 
that  Dr.  Bright  perpetrates  the  same  mistranslation  in  a  book 
intended  for  young  men  at  one  of  our  universities.  He  there 
translates  the  words  of  the  legates  *  we  have  no  instructions 
on  the  matter '  (Canons  of  the  first  four  General  Councils, 
p.  220,  2nd  ed.  1892).  The  words  of  the  legates  as  given  by 
the  bishops  are  TTapyrycravTO  Xcyovre?,  evroAa?  /jltj  elXrjcfiivaL 
roLavTa<;,  and  what  they  were  asked  was  Kotvuivovq  yiyvea-QaL  twv 
TrpaTTo/xevojv.  It  will  be  seen  that  their  actual  instructions 
fully  justified  them  in  refusing  to  attend  a  meeting  to  pro- 
mote, or  even  discuss  the  affairs  of  Constantinople's  jurisdic- 
tion in  the  matter  of  ordinations.  Cf.  Mansi,  vii.  428  and  444. 
It  is  clear  that  this  is  how  their  words  of  refusal  were 
understood  by  the  bishops,  for  in  the  following  session  the 
legates  were  asked  if  they  had  any  orders  '  about  this,' 
i.e.  about  the  matter  decided  by  the  bishops,  and  they  then 
read  their  order  (Mansi,  vii.  442,  444).  But  they  could  not 
have  been  asked  this,  if  they  had  been  understood  in  the 
fifteenth  session  to  mean  what  Dr.  Bright  understands  them 
to  have  meant,  i.e.  that  they  had  no  instructions  on  the 
matter. 


CHAPTER  X 

EASTERN    EECOGNITION    OF    PAPAL   SUPREMACY 

No  one  will  deny  the  incomparable  importance  of  the 
letter  which  was  now  addressed  to  Leo  by  the  remnant 
of  the  Synod  concerning  their  new  proposal.  The 
twenty -eighth  canon  of  Chalcedon  has  long  been  the 
sheet-anchor  of  the  Anglican  position.  Eelying  as  that 
position  does  on  the  first  four  General  Councils,  it  is 
maintained  that  the  judgment  of  the  Council  of  Chalce- 
don, supposed  to  be  expressed  in  this  canon,  establishes 
the  theory  that  the  primacy  of  the  Bishop  of  Rome  was 
considered  in  the  East  to  be  due,  not  to  his  relation  to 
St.  Peter,  but  to  the  Imperial  position  of  the  city  of 
Rome.  The  belief  in  any  real  relationship  to  St.  Peter 
postulates  a  divine  origin  for  the  primacy  of  the  Bishop 
of  Rome,  for  it  involves  the  belief  that  our  Lord  included 
that  primacy  in  His  words  to  the  Apostle.  And  if  the 
primacy  be  in  any  sense  divine,  it  is  indispensable.  No 
amount  of  misconduct  on  the  part  of  its  representatives 
can  justify  us  in  altering  the  lines  laid  down  by  our 
Divine  Lord  Himself.  But  this  twenty-eighth  canon 
proves,  so  it  is  confidently  asserted,  that  the  Bishop  of 
Rome  only  held  a  certain  primacy  by  reason  of  his  being 
bishop  of  the  Imperial  City.  He  was,  so  it  is  said,  only 
primus  inter  pares.  Constantinople  (it  is  urged)  was 
placed  by  this  canon  in  the  second  position  on  a  principle 


EASTERN  EECOGNITION  OF  PAPAL  SUPREMACY  351 

which  proves  that  Eome's  primacy  was  one  of  mere 
presidency,  of  honour  *  without  definite  powers  ' — in  a 
word  that  the  Bishop  of  Rome  was  only  the  '  First 
Patriarch.' 

Now  it  is  important  to  remember  that  the  Bishop  of 
Rome  loas  the  first  patriarch,  and  this  canon  recognises 
him  as  such.  There  is  no  dispute  about  this.  Leo 
XIIL  is  to-day  not  only  Bishop  of  Rome,  but  Patriarch 
of  the  West.  The  fault  of  the  so-called  twenty-eighth 
canon,  therefore,  did  not  lie  in  its  recognition  of 
Rome's  patriarchal  position ;  its  mistake  lay  in  at- 
tributing even  that  position  purely  to  her  connection 
with  the  Imperial  city,  whereas  the  matter  really  stood 
thus : — St.  Peter  selected  Rome,  and  Rome  was  the 
capital  of  the  empire.  His  successors  reaped  the  fruit 
of  his  wise  choice,  and  utilised,  as  they  were  meant  to 
do,  the  advantages  of  a  natural  centre.  Ecclesiastical 
Rome  was  able  to  be  what  she  was  because  she  was  the 
See  of  Peter  :  she  was  also  able  to  do  her  work  at  first  as 
she  did  because  her  influence  radiated  from  the  metropolis 
of  the  Empire.  Her  patriarchal  sway  was  subordinate  to 
her  apostolical  jurisdiction  ;  but  it  was  a  reality.  It  is 
difficult  to  draw  the  line  between  the  apostolical  and 
patriarchal  elements  of  her  position,  for  the  latter  is 
necessarily  overshadowed,  and  coloured,  and  informed 
by  the  former  ;  but  her  relationship  to  Peter,  the  prince 
and  head  of  the  Apostles,  is  clear,  and  occupied  an  un- 
mistakable place  in  the  thoughts  of  the  bishops  at 
Chalcedon.  It  was  expressed  emphatically  and  in  the 
most  precise  terms  by  the  comparatively  few  bishops 
who  passed  this  canon  in  favour  of  Constantinople.  The 
terms  which  they  use  in  their  letter  to  Leo  cannot  all  of 
them,  without  doing  violence  to  the  laws  which  govern 


352  EASTERN   RECOGNITION 

men's  minds,  be  attributed  simply  to  flattery  or  general 
Eastern  courtesy.  This,  which  is  the  favourite  Anglican 
explanation  of  these  bishops'  statements,  is  excluded  by 
the  circumstances  which  produced  the  letter.^ 

The  bishops  were,  it  is  true,  concerned  to  flatter  St. 
Leo,  if  possible :  they  wanted  to  gain  something  from 
him.  But  what  they  wanted  to  gain  was  of  that  nature 
that  the  particular  terms  used  by  them  were  the  last  in 
the  world  that  they  would  have  dreamt  of  addressing  to 
him  at  this  juncture,  merely  with  a  view  to  flatter,  even 
if  they  supposed  that  Leo  was  the  man  to  be  seduced  by 
honeyed  words  in  a  matter  of  such  supreme  importance. 
Consider  the  circumstances  under  which  they  wrote. 
Leo  had  shown  himself  above  all  things  zealous  for  the 
canons  of  the  Church.  It  was  this  trait  which  the 
Emperor  Marcian  singled  out  for  praise  in  his  encomium 
of  the  Pontiff  during  this  whole  transaction.  And  the 
bishops  at  Chalcedon  who  passed  the  twenty-eighth 
canon  were,  as  the  African  bishop  Facundus  described 
them  in  the  next  century,  '  astute  as  serpents.'  Is  it  to 
be  supposed  that  these  astute  bishops  would  give  away 
their  case  by  telling  St.  Leo  that  he  was  in  precisely 
that  position  which  their  canon,  according  to  the 
Anglican  interpretation,  was  concerned  to  deny  or 
ignore  ?  If  they  admitted  that  St.  Leo  was  their  *  head,' 
they  were  admitting  that  their  position  next  after  him 
was  secondary  in  the  sense  of  subordinate,  and  that 
their  canon  was  valueless  without  his  sanction.  If  they 
asserted  that  St.  Leo  was  the  instrument  whereby  the 
teaching  of  the  Prince  of  the  Apostles  was  made  known 
to  them,  they  were  giving  away  the  whole  position  which 
our   Anglican   friends   consider   essential  to  their  own 

»  Leon.  Ep.  98. 


OF  PAPAL   SUPREMACY  353 

security.  Terms  which  expressed,  in  plain  Greek  and 
Latin,  a  truth  which  Leo  had  all  along  maintained  and 
acted  upon,  and  which  his  legates  had  stated  in  the 
Council,  cannot  be  called  mere  compliments  ;  they  de- 
note the  acceptance  of  the  position. 

Now  the  bishops  did  tell  St.  Leo  that  '  he  was  their 
head,  and  they  but  members.'  What  could  be  their 
idea  in  using,  by  way  of  compliment,  such  an  expression 
as  that  ?  Did  they  suppose  that  Leo  would  not  take 
them  at  their  word  and  treat  them  as  members  and  act 
as  their  head  ? 

Then,  again,  they  did  tell  St.  Leo  that  he  was  their 
'  leader  '  in  the  Council,  through  his  legates.  They  used 
the  very  word  which  our  Lord  used  to  His  Apostles  when 
He  told  them  that  there  should  be  a  leader  (or  ruler) 
among  them,  and  that  their  leader  should  be  as  He 
Himself  was  in  their  midst — '  Even  as  I  am  among  you  ' 
not  lording  it  over  them,  but  teaching,  guiding,  govern- 
ing. Did  they  suppose  that  Leo  would  smile  at  the  term 
and  take  no  advantage  of  it  ? 

Again,  they  did  tell  St.  Leo  that  he  had  been  to 
them  *  the  interpreter  of  the  voice  of  Peter.'  It  was,  on 
the  Anglican  supposition,  exactly  the  wrong  occasion  to 
say  that.  They  were  not  Eastern  heathens  addressing 
heathen  rajahs,  or  Hindu  suppliants  before  their  con- 
querors. They  were  Christian  bishops — not,  it  is  true, 
the  best  specimens  ;  but  still,  all  Eastern  as  they  were, 
they  had  not  lost  all  Christian  sense  of  truth  in  spite  of 
their  Eastern  cunning.  On  the  other  hand,  they  knew 
that  it  was  the  teaching  of  Leo  that  he  was  the  successor 
of  Peter,  and  as  such  the  ruler  of  the  Christian  Church. 
And  they  were  not  so  utterly  devoid  of  all  sense  of  truth, 
and  of  ordinary  common  sense,  as  to  suppose  that  in 

A  A 


354  EASTERN   RECOGNITION 

putting  such  a  weapon  into  Leo's  hand  as  their  own 
recognition  of  his  position  as  successor  of  Peter,  they 
would  advance  the  cause  of  Constantinople.  Whereas  if 
the  Christian  world  held  that  Leo  was  their  head,  their 
language  was  natural,  for  then  they  lost  nothing  by 
saying  so. 

Again  they  did  tell  St.  Leo  that  *  the  vineyard  had 
been  entrusted  to  him  by  the  Saviour,'  in  a  way  which 
implied  that  he  stood  in  a  different  relation  to  that 
vineyard  from  the  rest  of  the  bishops.  And  they  did 
tell  him  that  he  was  the  '  father  '  of  Constantinople, 
and  trusted  that  he  would  '  extend  his  ivonted  care  over 
that  part  of  the  vineyard.'  In  fact  they  as  much  as 
said  there  is  no  such  thing  as  an  independent  national 
Church.  Although  we  are  the  East,  and  under  one 
Emperor,  and  you  are  in  the  West  and  under  another, 
still  you  have  responsibilities  towards  the  East,  and  a 
paternal  relation  to  it,  and  you  acted  as  our  ruler  in  the 
Council,  and  were  the  interpreter  to  us  of  the  Prince  of 
the  Apostles,  and  we  apply  to  you  for  that  sanction 
without  which  our  canon  can  never  be  the  voice  of  the 
Catholic  Church.     This  was  what  they  said  in  effect. 

Indeed,  they  said  more  than  this ;  for  they  told 
St.  Leo  that  their  own  delivery  of  the  truth  to  the 
children  of  the  Church  was  but  as  the  flowing  forth  of  a 
stream  from  him  as  its  Apostolic  source.  '  Thou  wast 
constituted  the  interpreter  of  the  voice  of  blessed  Peter 
to  us  all,  and  didst  bring  to  all  the  blessing  of  his  faith. 
Whence  we  also  show  the  inheritance  of  truth  to  the 
children  of  the  Church.'  ^     And  hence  unity  of  teaching 


^   '66€v  Kal  rifxeTs  .   .   .  ttjs  dArj0€;'as  toIs  ttjj  iKKX-qaias  TtKvois  rhv  KXr\pov 
iBd^afieu  {Leon.  Ep.  98,  §  1). 


OF  PAPAL   SUPREMACY  355 

is  secured  by  what  they  distinctly  state  as  the  mediatorial 
position  of  their  head. 

Of  Eutyches,  who,  be  it  remembered,  was  deposed  by 
the  Synod  of  Constantinople,  the  Acts  of  which  were 
sent  to  Leo,  as  to  a  court  of  revision,  these  bishops  say 
that  '  his  dignity  was  taken  away  by  your  Holiness ' 
— which  is  the  result  arrived  at  above  from  a  considera- 
tion of  the  facts  (Leon.  E}-),  98,  §  2). 

And  of  Dioscorus  they  say  that  he  meditated  an 
excommunication  'against  thee,  when  thou  wast  all 
eager  to  unite  the  Church,'  and  '  he  repudiated  the 
letter  of  your  Holiness.' 

They  speak  also  of  being  eager  to  '  confirm '  the 
mercy  of  the  Saviour  towards  him  (which  was  what 
Leo  had  desired  them  to  do)— not  as  if  '  confirming' 
necessarily  implies  the  action  of  a  superior  court,  but  in 
obedience  to  their  Saviour's  words  {ibid.  §  3). 

They  speak  of  the  actual  help  derived  from  St. 
Euphemia-  '  God  was  with  us  and  Euphemia  was  with 
us  ' — on  whose  altar  we  know  they  placed  their  defini- 
tion, for  the  entire  Synod  believed  in  the  Invocation  of 
Saints. 

And  then  they  ask  that  Leo  will  '  accept  and  con- 
firm '  their  canon. 

When  they  mention  the  legates'  opposition  to  their 
canon,  they  profess  to  ascribe  that  opposition  to  the 
idea  in  the  legates'  minds  that  everything  ought  to 
originate  with  his  Holiness,  '  so  that  even  as  the  right 
settlement  of  the  faith  is  set  down  to  your  account,  so 
also  should  that  of  good  discipline.'  They  in  fact 
acknowledge  that  the  matter  of  faith  was  settled  by  Leo, 
but  they  thought  that  they  might  initiate  a  matter  of 
discipline,    which    they    had    now    brought    before   hia 

A   A    2 


356  EASTERN   RECOGNITION 

Holiness  for  his  acceptance  and  confirmation.  '  There- 
fore, we  entreat  thee,  honour  the  decision  with  your 
favourable  judgment,  that  as  we  have  introduced  har- 
mony with  the  head  in  the  things  that  are  excellent,  so 
the  head  may  supply  to  the  children  that  which  is 
becoming.' 

They  have  (they  say)  sent  the  Acts  to  Leo  for  his 
approval  and  sanction.^ 

Now  these  are,  many  of  them,  positive  statements  of 
doctrine.  Is  sentence  by  sentence,  one  after  the  other, 
to  be  dismissed  as  mere  compliment  ?  Could  anything 
but  the  exigencies  of  controversy  have  led  Canon  Bright 
and  Canon  Gore,  and  other  Anglican  writers,  to  set  aside 
all  these  definite  statements  on  the  part  of  the  bishops 
on  the  ground  that  they  were  mere  compliments  ? 

If  they  were  '  compliments,'  they  were  those  of  men 
who  found  themselves  compelled  to  couch  their  compli- 
ments in  terms  which,  if  they  wished  to  be  independent 
of  Eome,  cut  the  ground  from  under  their  feet,  sentence 
after  sentence.  They  are  not  in  the  place  in  which 
compliments  would  come,  nor  are  they  of  the  nature  of 
honorific  expletives.  They  form  the  substance  of  the 
letter. 

If  insincerely  used,  they  testify  to  the  necessity  under 
which  these  bishops  found  themselves,  of  crouching  at 
the  feet  of  a  master  in  order  to  gain  the  object  of 
their  desires.  If  used  in  sincerity,  they  are  the  testi- 
mony of  witnesses,  naturally  the  most  unwilling,  to  the 
position  of  headship  which  the  East  recognised  in  the 
occupant  of  the  See  of  Peter.  We  cannot  claim  for 
them  the  authority  of  the  Council,  for  these  men  were 

1   Twv  Trap*  Tifxoov  ireTrpay/xepwv  ^efia'atriv  tc  koI  avyKardOeaiv  (Leon.  Ep, 
98,  last  line). 


OF  PAPAL   SUPREMACY  357 

not  the  Council ;  but  we  are  compelled  to  see  in  these 
terms  the  strongest  possible  evidence  that  the  idea  of 
the  connection  between  Rome  and  St.  Peter,  and  of 
such  a  consequent  '  headship  '  of  Rome  over  Constanti- 
nople that  the  latter  could  not  arrange  its  own  relations 
with  other  sees  in  the  East  without  the  acquiescence  of 
Rome — we  are  compelled,  I  say,  to  acknowledge  that 
this  was  so  deeply  rooted  in  the  mind  of  the  Eastern 
Church  that  it  was  simply  useless  to  ignore  it,  and  that 
the  only  thing  to  be  done  was  to  admit  it  plainly  and  to 
win  the  adhesion  of  Rome  to  their  projected  canon. 

But  side  by  side  with  this  letter  of  the  bishops  is 
another,  written  by  Anatolius  himself,  not  less  emphatic 
in  its  witness  to  the  Constantinoj)olitan  conviction  as  to 
the  Pope's  supremacy.  Anatolius  speaks  of  the  bishops 
at  Chalcedon  having  confirmed  '  the  faith  of  the  blessed 
and  venerable  fathers  '  of  Nicsea,  '  and  also  your  Holi- 
ness's  letter  agreeing  with  them' — showing  that  the 
attitude  of  the  Synod  towards  the  Tome  was  the  same  in 
one  respect  as  towards  the  Nicene  faith — viz.  that  their 
confirmation  of  it  was  an  acceptance  of  an  authoritative 
statement.^  He  then  says  that  Bishop  Lucentius  is 
bringing  the  Acts  of  the  Synod,  since  '  it  was  a  matter 
of  necessity  that  all  things  should  be  brought  to  the 
cognisance  of  your  Holiness.'  '^  But  beside  these  things, 
since   some    matters   were   transacted   which   specially 

'  In  the  first  edition  this  sentence  was  without  the  words  '  in  one 
respect.'  I  have  added  these  words  because  Dr.  Bright  managed  to 
misunderstand  my  meaning,  as  though  I  had  stated  that  the  attitude  of 
the  Synod  towards  the  Nicene  Symbol  and  the  Tome  of  Leo  was  in  all 
respects  the  same,  which  it  would  be  absurd  to  suppose. 

2  eSet  anavra  avayKalws  [Leon.  Ep.  101,  cap.  1).  This  could  not  be 
said  of  other  absent  bishops.  Sending  the  Acts  was  treating  Leo  as  a 
higher  court. 


358  EASTERN   RECOGNITION 

concerned  themselves/  and  these  must  also  of  necessity 
he  brought  to  the  knowledge  of  his  Holiness,  Anatolius 
says  that  he  sent  these  letters  by  the  same  messengers,  to 
receive  an  answer  concerning  them.  He  then  mentions 
the  acts  in  order.  First  came  Dioscorus's  excommunica- 
tion, which  he  feels  sm^e  will  obtain  his  Holiness's  assent. 
Next  {Leon.  Ep.  101,  c.  3)  he  speaks  of  the  reception 
of  the  Tome  in  exact  accordance  with  what  we  have  seen 
above.  He  says  that  it  was  needful  that  '  the  under- 
standing of  all  should  agree  with  the  meaning  of  your 
orthodox  faith,'  and  that  this  was  the  end  for  which  the 
Emperor  convened  the  Council — words  which  are  com- 
pletely corroborative  of  the  view  of  the  matter  taken  in 
this  book  (pp.  270-292).  Anatolius's  words  express  the 
object  of  the  session  held  after  Dioscorus's  excommunica- 
tion, as  that  of  obtaining  an  intelligent  adhesion  to  the 
faith  as  propounded  by  Leo.  Consequently,  Anatolius 
says,  that  with  prayers  and  tears,  and  with  the  help  of 
Leo  himself,  assisting  in  spirit  and  co-operating  by 
means  of  the  well-beloved  men  whom  his  Holiness 
sent  to  the  Council,  and  under  the  protection  of  St. 
Euphemia,  he  and  those  with  him  had  devoted  them- 
selves to  the  work — in  allusion  to  the  '  instruction  ' 
given  in  Anatolius's  house  to  the  Illyrian  bishops.  And 
when  the  time  had  come  for  all  to  issue  an  harmonious 
definition,  they  had  done  so,  in  spite  of  some  contentious 
opposition  from  the  first,  and  for  the  confirmation  of 
their  definition  '  in  accordance  with  that  holy  epistle  of 
yours,'  they  placed  it  on  the  holy  altar.  This  latter 
remark  explains  the  statement  of  the  bishops  that  their 
definition  was  offered  by  Euphemia  to  her  divine  Spouse. 

'  Sia   rh   l^iKws   Tiixlv   iriTrpaxOai    riva — called   '  negotia   privata '    in 
Pelagius  II.'s  letter  to  the  Istrian  bishops. 


OF  PAPAL   SUPREMACY  359 

So  that  Anatolius,  writing  thus  publicly  an  account 
of  the  Synod,  emphasises  (1)  the  necessity  of  agreement 
with  the  definition  of  faith  issued  by  Leo,  and  (2)  the 
necessity  of  reporting  to  the  Pontiff  whatever  was  done 
at  the  Synod  ;  and  (3)  describes  the  confirmation  of  their 
canon  by  Leo  as  at  once  necessary  for  them  and  free  on 
his  part.^ 

Having  thus  described  the  relation  of  the  Council  to 
the  Pope,  in  exact  accordance  with  all  that  has  been 
said  in  these  pages,  Anatolius  proceeds  to  introduce  the 
subject  of  the  canon.  He  describes  it  as  having  for  its 
object  the  confirmation  of  the  canon  of  the  150  Fathers, 
who  decreed  that  the  Bishop  of  Constantinople  should 
have  honour  and  precedence  (not  irpcoTsia,  primacy) 
next  after  the  most  holy  throne  of  Eome,  by  reason  of 
her  being  '  New  Eome.'  And  he  says  it  {i.e.  the  canon 
drawn  up  at  Chalcedon)  decided  that  the  ordination  of 
the  metropolitans  of  the  diocese  of  Pontus,  of  Asia  and 
of  Thrace  should  rest  with  Constantinople  ;  but  that 
the  bishops  under  them  should  not  be  ordained,  as  had 
been  the  case  for  sixty  or  seventy  years,  by  the  latter, 
but  by  their  own  metropolitans. 

He  then  complains  of  the  legates'  opposition  to  all 
this,  and  speaks  of  the  sanction  of  the  Emperor.  He 
says  that  they  paid  all  possible  respect  to  the  legates, 
but  that  they  have  now  reported  their  decision  to  his 
Holiness,  in  hope  of  gaining  his  assent  and  confirmation, 
which  they  entreat  him  to  give.  '  For  the  throne  of 
Constantinople  has  your  Apostolic  throne  as  its  Father, 
having  specially  attached  itself  to  you.'  And  so  he  asks 
for  the  ratification  of  the  canon. 

Later  on  (in  454)  the  archbishop  tells  the  Pope  that 

'  Cf.  Leon.  Ex?.  101,  ed.  Ballerini,  7wte. 


360  EASTERN  RECOGNITION 

'  all  the  force  and  confirmation  of  what  was  thus  done 
was  reserved  for  the  authority  of  your  Blessedness.'  ^ 

Now  after  these  two  letters— the  one  from  the  enact- 
ing bishops  at  Chalcedon,  and  the  other  from  the  Arch- 
bishop of  Constantinople  himself— it  is  idle  to  talk  of 
the  '  self-assertion '  of  Eome  as  having  anything  to  do 
with  the  twenty-eighth  canon.  St.  Leo  doubtless  knew 
how  to  magnify  his  office.  But,  indeed,  there  was  no 
need  to  do  that  here  ;  it  was  already  done  for  him.  He 
was  recognised  publicly  and  unmistakably  by  these 
bishops  of  the  Eastern  part  of  the  Church  as  the 
natural  and,  indeed,  the  necessary  guardian  of  the 
canons  of  the  whole  Church,  and  this,  too,  in  virtue  of 
his  relationship,  through  his  see,  to  the  blessed  Apostle 
Peter.  To  attribute  all  this  plain  dogmatic  and  public 
exposition  of  the  relationship  of  the  Holy  See  to  the  rest 
of  the  Church  to  mere  courtesy  can  only  be  the  shift  of 
those  who  find  themselves  driven  hard  to  explain  un- 
toward facts.  The  facts  are  that  the  bishops  who  drew 
up  the  twenty-eighth  canon  did  avow  their  entire  depend- 
ence on  Rome  as  the  See  of  St.  Peter,  and  that  the 
Archbishop  of  Constantinople  himself  counted  the  pro- 
posal canonically  null  and  void  without  the  subsequent 
confirmation  of  the  Bishop  of  Eome.  The  explanation 
proposed  and  adopted  by  those  writers  who  are  out  of 
communion  with  Rome,  and  have  drawn  up  canons 
independently  of  her,  is  that  all  this  plain  speech  was 
meie  pretence.  Even  so  it  would  require  to  be  noticed 
that  the  pretence  took  that  particular  shape.  But,  in 
fact,  pretence  will  not  explain  such  statements  unless 
these  bishops  were   utterly   regardless   of   truth.     But 

'  Ep.  132,  c.  4 :    '  Cum   et  sic  gestorum  vis  omnis  et  confirmatio 
auctoritati  vestrse  beatitudinis  fuerit  reservata.' 


OF  PAPAL   SUPREMACY  361 

what,  then,  is  the  value  of  their  canon,  so  much  reHed 
on  by  our  Anglican  friends  ? 

The  letters  of  St.  Leo  in  regard  to  all  this  are  full  of 
Christian  royalty.  Majestic,  uncompromising,  and  tender, 
they  would  by  themselves  be  sufficient  to  establish  his 
claim  to  the  title  which  Christendom  has  accorded  to 
him — Leo  the  Great. 

To  Anatolius  he  wrote,^  reminding  him  of  the  sus- 
picion which  had  originally  attached  to  his  orthodoxy, 
praising  the  faith  which  he  now  exhibited,  but  regretting 
that  he  had  allowed  himself  to  be  influenced  by  the  lust 
of  honour  and  power.  He  blames  him  for  endeavouring 
to  use  a  Council,  assembled  for  the  matter  of  faith,  for 
his  ambitious  projects,  and  for  imagining  that  any 
number  of  bishops  could  override  the  Nicene  settlement 
(cap.  2).  He  considers  that  Anatolius's  blame  of  the 
Papal  legates  is  their  commendation,  for  they  were 
bound  to  oppose  any  infringement  of  the  Nicene  canons 
(cap.  3).  He  says  he  is  sure  that  Anatolius  will  please 
the  royalties  more  by  self-restraint  than  by  ambition. 
The  decision  of  '  some  bishops,'  sixty  years  ago,  '  never 
transmitted  to  the  Apostolic  See,'  is  no  support  what- 
ever. (In  other  words,  the  third  canon  of  Constantinople 
is  of  no  account.)  Alexandria  ought  not  to  suffer 
because  of  Dioscorus,  nor  Antioch,  where  Peter  first 
preached,  be  degraded  (cap.  5).  The  Pontiff  concludes 
with  most  earnestly  and  lovingly  entreating  Anatolius  to 
cultivate  humility  and  charity. 

Already  Leo  had  written  to  the  Emperor,  severely 
blaming  Anatolius  for  not  being  content  with  being 
bishop  of  the  royal  city,  but  aiming  at  the  rank  of  an 
Apostolic  see,  which  Constantinople  can  never  become. 

'  Ep.  106. 


362  EASTERN   EECOGNITION 

And  he  tells  the  Emperor,  in  answer  to  his  Majesty's 
request  that  his  Holiness  would  give  his  consent  to 
Constantinople  taking  place  above  Alexandria  and 
Antioch,  that  Nicene  arrangements  cannot  thus  be  set 
aside,  and  that  in  their  defence,  by  the  help  of  Christ, 
it  is  necessary  for  him  to  be  a  faithful  servant  unto  the 
end,  *  since  a  dispensation  has  been  entrusted  to  me  ' 
(' dispensatio  mihi  credita  est'),  'and  the  guilt  will  be 
mine  if  the  rules  sanctioned  by  the  fathers  in  the 
Synod  of  Nicaea,  for  the  government  of  the  whole 
Church,  by  the  assistance  of  the  Spirit  of  God,  should 
be  violated  by  my  connivance,  which  God  forbid.'  ^ 

But,  as  Leo's  overlooking  the  ordination  of  Maximus 
of  Antioch  by  Anatolius  (which  contravened  the  Nicene 
canon)  might  seem  inconsistent,  he  adds  that  he  has 
not  rehandled  that,  out  of  love  for  the  recovery  of  the 
faith  and  desire  for  peace.^ 

To  Pulcheria  he  writes  in  the  same  strain,  saying 
that  he  renders  null  and  void  ('  in  irritum  mittimus ') 
what  the  bishops  agreed  to  contrary  to  the  Nicene  regu- 
lations, and  that  he  does  so  by  the  authority  of  the 
blessed  Apostle  Peter.^ 

In  the  following  year  the  Emperor  wrote  to  St.  Leo, 
telling  him  that  he  was  unwilling  to  resort  to  extreme 
measures  with  the  monks  in  Palestine  until  he  could 
show  them  his  (Leo's)  confirmation  of  the  Chalcedonian 
definition.  He  says  that  the  Eutychianisers  had  thrown 
doubts  on  that  confirmation.*  The  Emperor,  in  this 
letter,  yields  the  point  of  the  twenty-eighth  canon,  and 

'  Ep.  104.  2  xbid.  §  5.  =>  El).  105. 

■•  '  Whether  your  Blessedness  has  confirmed  the  things  decreed 
(TviruQivTa)  in  the  Synod,'  i.e.  on  the  matter  of  faith  and  excommunica- 
tion of  Dioscorus.     Ep.  110. 


OF  PAPAL   SUPREMACY  363 

expresses  his  warm  sympathy  with  the  Pope  for  the 
stand  he  had  made  on  behalf  of  historical  veracity  and 
the  ancient  ways.  '  For  assuredly,'  wrote  his  Imperial 
Majesty,  '  your  Holiness  did  excellently  well,  as  became 
the  Bishop  of  the  Apostolic  See,  in  so  guarding  the 
canons  of  the  Church  as  not  to  suffer  any  innovation  on 
ancient  custom  or  the  order  settled  of  old,  and  inviolably 
observed  to  this  day.'  Considering  what  Leo  had 
written  to  Marcian,  this  public  acknowledgment  of  the 
position  of  the  Apostolic  See  as  guardian  of  the  canons, 
from  an  Eastern  Emperor  who  had  his  desires  as  to  a 
rise  in  dignity  for  his  Imperial  city,  and  had  for  a 
moment  been  led  away  by  the  Bishop  of  Constantinople, 
is  at  once  a  tribute  to  his  real  goodness  and  a  witness,  if 
further  witness  were  needed,  to  the  ingrained  conviction 
of  Christendom  that  the  Holy  See  had  a  special  dispensa- 
tion committed  to  it,  and  that  its  charge  was  nothing 
less  than  the  government  of  the  universal  Church.  For 
to  guard  the  canons  of  the  Church,  as  Bishop  of  the 
Apostolic  See,  is  to  govern  the  universal  Church. 

St.  Leo  left  Julian,  Bishop  of  Cos,  as  his  legate  at 
Constantinople  ('vice  mea  functus'),  'lest  either  the 
Nestorian  or  the  Eutychian  heresy  should  revive,  since 
there  is  not  the  vigour  of  a  Catholic  in  the  Bishop  of 
Constantinople.'  *  And  he  wrote  to  all  the  bishops  who 
had  been  at  Chalcedon  to  say  that  they  could  have  had 
no  doubt  about  his  approval  of  what  had  been  done  at 
Chalcedon  in  regard  to  the  faith,  had  Anatolius  only 
shown  the  letter  he  had  received,  which  he  had  kept 
back  because  of  what  concerned  himself.  '  In  regard  to 
the  faith ' — for  it  was  for  that  alone  that  the  Council 
was  convoked  '  by  order  of  the  Emperors,  and  with  the 

'  Ep.  113. 


364     EASTEEN  RECOGNITION  OF  PAPAL  SUPEEMACY 

consent  of  the  Apostolic  throne.'  And  he  says,  where- 
fore '  if  anyone  shall  dare  to  hold  the  perfidy  of  Nestorius 
or  Eutyches  and  to  defend  the  impious  dogma  of  Dios- 
corus,  let  him  be  cut  off  from  the  communion  of  Catholics.' 
At  the  same  time  they  will  see  from  his  letters  to 
Anatolius  with  what  reverence  the  Apostolic  See  deals 
with  the  regulations  of  the  Nicene  fathers,  and  that,  by 
the  help  of  God,  he  (Leo)  is  guardian  of  the  faith  of  our 
fathers  and  the  canons  of  the  Church.^ 

As  it  is  the  duty  of  a  king  to  guard  the  laws,  and 
himself  to  set  an  example  of  their  observance,  so  Leo,  as 
the  divinely  instituted  governor  of  the  Christian  Church, 
while,  for  the  sake  of  peace,  he  allowed  Maximus,  though 
otherwise  uncanonically  ordained,  to  remain  in  his  epi- 
scopate, would  not  allow  the  ambition  of  a  prelate  in  the 
Imperial  city  to  oust  Alexandria  and  Antioch  from  the 
position  assigned  to  them  by  the  Nicene  fathers,  on  a 
principal  fatal  to  the  spiritual  character  of  the  Church, 
viz.  that  civil  dignity  could  of  itself,  apart  from  the 
action  of  the  See  of  Peter — i.e.  without  the  consent  of  the 
Church — raise  a  see  to  the  rank  which  Alexandria  and 
Antioch  then  held. 

'  E2J.  114,  e.  1. 


APPENDICES 


APPENDICES 


APPENDIX  I 

DR.  BRIGHT  AND  THE  LETTER  OF  THE  SYNOD  TO  LEO 

The  account  just  given  of  the  bishops'  letter  to  St.  Leo,  asking 
for  his  confirmation  of  the  twenty-eighth  canon  is  almost 
word  for  word  the  same  as  in  the  first  edition  of  my  book  on 
The  Primitive  Church  and  the  See  of  Peter.  I  now 
subjoin  Dr.  Bright's  criticisms  on  this  account,  with  replies. 

1.  He  protests  that  'the  canon  must  be  taken  in  its 
grammatical  sense  and  not  explained  away  on  the  score  of  any 
expressions  in  the  letter  '  (Boman  See,  p.  205).  With  that 
we  should  agree.  But  at  the  same  time  if  we  want  to  know 
what  the  bishops  thought  as  to  the  validity  of  their  canon  in 
the  case  of  its  not  receiving  the  assent  of  the  Apostolic  See 
— in  other  words,  what  they  thought  of  the  authority  of  that 
see — we  shall  find  an  exposition  of  their  doctrine  on  this 
head  in  the  letter  which  accompanied  their  canon. 

2.  '  Then  look,'  says  Dr.  Bright,  '  at  their  expressions  : 
the  bishops  call  Leo  their  "  head  "  because  by  his  legates  he 
was  their  president '  {ibid.). 

They  do  not  say  so.  They  say  '  whom  you,  as  head  of 
the  members,  were  ruling  [or  presiding  over]  in  those  who 
held  your  place.'  ^     The  words,  taken  in  their  strict  literal 

'   wu  (TV  fifu,  ojs  KC(pa\i]  ixeXwv,  riy^fxovfvis  iv  ro'is  k.  t.  A. 


368  APPENDIX   I 

sense,  signify  that  Leo  presided  as  being  head  of  the 
members,  not  that  he  was  head  because  he  presided — in  fact 
that  he  presided  because  of  his  position  in  the  Cathohc 
Church.  The  Emperor  Marcian,  in  his  letter  to  Leo  about 
the  Council,  had  said  that  the  Emperors  were  assembling  it 
with  Leo's  authority,  aov  av6€VTovvTo<;  {Leon.  Ep.  63).  Leo 
had  authorised  it  by  requesting  it  of  Theodosius.  And  the 
Empress  Pulcheria  had  said  that  the  object  of  the  Council 
was  that  its  members  might  decide  with  Leo's  authority  {aov 
avOevTovvTos  opiamcnv)  the  matter  of  the  bishops  who  had 
gone  wrong  at  the  Latrocinium  {Ejj.  11).  Then  Leo  had 
been  called  by  the  legates  '  the  head  of  the  universal 
Church  '  at  the  opening  of  the  Council.  And  in  this  letter 
Leo  is  presently  called  the  '  head  '  with  no  reference  to  presi- 
dency over  the  Council.  In  this  latter  passage  not  only  is 
the  word  K€^aA>i  used  of  Leo,  but  also  Kopvcfirj,  the  regular  term 
for  the  Emperor,  or  head  of  the  Empire  (Mansi,  vii.  89),  and 
this  with  respect  to  Leo's  subsequent  confirmation  of  their 
canon.  This  could  not  be  the  act  of  the  president  merely, 
for  that,  they  say,  was  fulfilled  through  the  legates.  *  As  we 
have  given  consent  to  the  head  in  good  things  [i.e.  in  the 
matter  of  faith,  in  the  Council]  so  let  the  head  fulfil  what  is 
becoming  towards  the  children  ;  '  ^  the  metaphor  of  *  father' 
naturally  slipping  in,  since  the  Pope  was  the  '  Holy  Father,' 
in  their  language,  as  well  as  the  '  head.'  It  is  obvious  that 
the  bishops  are  not  here  speaking  of  presidency  over  the 
Council,  but  of  a  general  headship  over  themselves.  For 
the  consent  of  which  they  speak  was  not  given  to  the  Pope 
as  president  of  the  Council,  but  to  his  letter  or  Tome,  irre- 
spective of  his  presidency  ;  and  the  ratification  asked  for  is 
compared  at  once  with  that  of  the  Emperor  in  the  civil 
order,  which  was  given,  not  as  president,  but  afterwards  as 
Emperor.^  Nor  is  this  all.  In  the  earlier  passage  before 
us,  from  which  the  word  quoted  by  Dr.  Bright  is  taken,  the 

'   ovTO)  Koi  7)  Kopv(pri  rails  naialu  avairXripwaoi  rh  irpeirou. 
-  ^a(Ti\€'is   .   .   .   ^e^ai(v<TauT(s,  C.  iv.  end. 


DR.   BRIGHT  AND   LETTER  OF   SYNOD  TO   LEO    3G9 

bishops  also  compare  the  Pope  with  the  Emperor.  Their 
words  are  :  *  Whom  while  you,  as  head  of  the  members,  pre- 
sided over  [or  ruled]  in  the  person  of  those  who  hold  your 
place,  the  faithful  Emperors  presided  over  for  the  purpose 
of  keeping  order.'  ^  Here  the  Pope  and  the  Emperor  are 
both  compared  and  contrasted.  Each  has  rule  over  the 
members  of  the  Synod,  but  the  relationship  of  the  Emperor 
is  external,  that  of  the  Pope  is  interior  and  intimate,  being 
that  of  the  head  to  the  limbs. 

3.  Dr.  Bright  says  that  Leo  '  had  "  held  the  position  of 
interpreting  the  words  "  [he  thus  translates  rrjs  (jnovrj^ — one 
sees  why]  "of  blessed  Peter,"  inasmuch  as  they  had  accepted 
his  Tome  expressly  on  the  ground  that  it  truly  represented 
the  purport  of  Matt.  xvi.  16  ;  and  by  publicly  affirming  the 
true  faith  they  had  "  used  him  as  an  originator  of  what  was 
good  "  '  {ibid.). 

They  say  something  very  different.  They  speak  of  the 
*  faith '  and  '  knowledge  of  the  Lord,'  *  which  the  Saviour 
brought  us  from  above,'  '  which  you  yourself  preserved  as 
a  golden  chain  reaching  down  to  us,  by  the  precept  of  the 
Lawgiver,  being  constituted  interpreter  ^  of  the  voice  of 
blessed  Peter  to  all '  [it  w^ill  be  noticed  that  Dr.  Bright  un- 
fortunately omits  those  words  *  to  all '  ]  '  and  yourself  bring 
the  blessedness  of  his  faith  to  all.'  The  position  of  interpret- 
ing the  voice  of  Peter  is  not  here  attributed  to  the  acceptance 
of  the  Tome,  but  to  appointment  by  our  Lord.  Then— and 
this  is  of  supreme  importance — they  go  on  to  say, '  Whence  ' 
[i.e.  since  you  hold  the  position  of  interpreter  of  the  voice 
of   Peter,    and   yourself   bring   to    all  (cc^eA/co/xci/o?,  present 

'  The  word  used  of  the  Pope's  presidency  is  r}y€fx.6v€v€s  :  that  used  of 
the  Emperor's  is  e^vpxov.  But  they  are  synonymous,  (^vpxof  is  used 
of  the  presidency  of  Cyril  and  Celestine  (Mansi,  vii.  477),  and  of  Osius 
at  Nice  {ibid.  464),  and  of  Leo  at  Chalcedon  {ibid.  85),  and  in  this  letter 
laity  without  their  bishop  are  called  avrjy efiovevrcov,  which  to  those  who 
believe  in  Episcopacy  shows  that  the  word  implies  rule. 

-  Readers  of  Eusebius  will  remember  his  description  of  St.  Mark  as 
fpiirtvevrris  U^rpov  in  his  Gospel. 

B  B 


370  APPENDIX   I 

middle)  the  blessedness  of  Peter's  faith]  loc  also  by  using  you 
as  originator  of  what  was  good '  [i.e.  the  true  faith]  *  shoiued 
forth  the  inheritance  of  the  truth  to  the  children  of  the 
Church,'  i.e.  by  their  common  public  confession  of  the  faith, 
as  they  explam,  making  it  known  with  one  mind.  So  that 
Dr.  Bright's  interpretation  needs  to  be  exactly  reversed.  It 
was  not  the  acceptance  of  the  Tome  that  made  Leo  the  in- 
terpreter of  the  voice  of  Peter,  but  Leo's  action  as  such,  that 
led  to  their  common  confession  at  the  Council.  Nor  is  this 
all.  They  proceed  to  liken  their  doings  to  a  spiritual  feast 
of  good  things  '  which  Christ  furnished  to  the  guests  by  your 
letter'  The  Tome,  then,  was  furnished  them  by  our  Lord 
as  their  spiritual  food.  It  was  not  their  acceptance  of  the 
Tome  that  made  it  spiritual  food  ;  that  acceptance  was  their 
assimilation  of  the  food  prepared  by  Christ.  It  was  not, 
then  (to  be  exact),  '  by  publicly  affirming  the  true  faith  that 
they  had  used  him  [Leo]  as  an  originator,'  as  Dr.  Bright 
puts  it,  but  it  was  by  using  him  (x/ov/o-a/xcj'ot)  as  leader  or 
originator  {ap^qyi^)  that  they  were  led  publicly  to  affirm  that 
faith  (o^tv.   .    •   eSa'^a/ACv). 

4.  Dr.  Bright  further  speaks  of  '  that  curious  passage 
which  assumes  that  the  legates  only  resisted  the  new  canon 
that  Leo  might  have  the  pleasure  of  approving  it '  {ibid.  206), 
and  says :  *  Mr.  Rivington  himself  would  not  deny  that 
Oriental  fluency  of  "  compliment "  appears  in  that  curious 
passage.' 

I  am  sorry  I  cannot  give  Dr.  Bright  even  this  crumb  of 
comfort.  For  his  words  are  a  curious  misreading  of  a  passage 
touching  on  an  important  point  of  discipline.  There  is 
doubtless  Oriental  ingenuity,  and  the  truth  is  put  in  a 
deferential  shape  ;  but  the  passage  (in  which  Dr.  Bright's 
words  do  not  occur)  contains  what  they  intended  for  a 
real  argument.  The  bishops  are  here  giving  as  the 
legates'  ground  for  resisting  the  canon  the  contention  that 
such   a  matter  should  be  initiated  by  Rome,^  so  that  the 


DR. 

restoration  ^  of  order  as  well  as  of  the  faith,  should  be  set  to 
the  account  of  Kome,  who  was  responsible  for  each.  This 
was  what  the  legates  had  actually  said  when  they  refused  to 
attend  the  fifteenth  session,  and  their  instructions  from  Leo 
as  to  repelling  any  attempt  to  alter  the  relations  of  the  sees 
to  one  another  implied  the  same.  They  had  '  no  such 
instructions '  from  Eome,^  i.e.  as  to  take  part  in  discussing 
such  a  question,  which  was  not  in  the  original  programme  as 
set  forth  by  Leo.  The  bishops  in  this  letter  go  on  to  say  that 
they  had  had  respect  to  the  wishes  of  the  Emperor,  the 
Senate,  and  the  whole  city,  and  authorised  '  a  confirmation 
of  its  honour  '  {i.e.  of  the  city),  feeling  sure  that  this  might  be 
considered  to  have  emanated  from  his  Holiness,  zealous  as 
he  always  was  to  cherish  their  welfare  and  '  knowing  that 
every  settlement  made  by  the  children  redounds  to  their  own 
fathers.'  Here,  of  course,  they  are  creeping  along,  insinuat- 
ing, and  softly  persuasive.  But  consider  what  they  have  to 
concede  in  order  to  soften  any  possible  objection  from  Leo. 
They  accept  the  principle  that  such  matters,  if  discussed  in 
a  Council,  ought  to  have  been  part  of  the  programme  settled 
at  Eome,  but — and  here  comes  in  their  '  Oriental  fluency  ' — 
they  pretend  that  the  gain  in  this  case  is  so  obvious  thab 
they  may  count  on  Leo's  acceptance  of  it  in  the  spirit  of  a 
father,  and  may  consider  that  practically,  owing  to  his 
general  goodwill  (here  is  compliment),  he  may  be  considered 
to  have  included  it  in  his  original  programme  by  implication. 
There  is  nothing  in  the  letter  to  justify  Dr.  Bright's  inter- 
pretation that  'the  legates  are  said  to  have  resisted  the 
canon  only  that  Leo  might  have  the  pleasure  of  approving 
it.'  This  is  a  fundamental  misconception  of  the  situation. 
They  are  said  to  have  resisted  on  the  ground  of  Eome's 
right  of  settling  beforehand  the  business  of  the  Council 
(dpiaaOaL) ;  the  Council,  however,  suggest  that  this  was  a 
case   in  which  Leo  could  not  but  approve.     I  am  far  from 

'  Or  'right  settlement,'  KarSpeu/xa. 

■  Mansi,  vii.  428.     See  note  on  the  meaning  of  this  above,  p.  347. 

B    B    2 


372  APPENDIX   I 

denying  that  these  Easterns  were  writing  with  diplomatic 
courtesy,  but  the  Papal  principles  which  underlie  their 
expressions  are  unmistakable,  and  in  the  first  part  of  their 
letter  they  are  stating  doctrine,  not  indulging  in  compHment, 
when  they  speak  of  the  method  adopted  by  our  Divine  Lord 
for  communicating  the  knowledge  of  Himself. 

5.  But  the  next  sentence  in  the  bishops'  letter  is  still 
more  strangely  dealt  with  by  our  critic.  They  say,  '  We 
entreat  you,  therefore,  honour  also  by  your  own  decrees  the 
decision  '  [i.e.  about  the  exaltation  of  Constantinople  over 
Alexandria  and  Antioch]  '  as  we  have  exhibited  [lit.  intro- 
duced] agreement  with  the  head  in  those  things  that  are 
good  '  [i.e.,  as  the  same  word  means  earlier  in  their  letter, 
'  the  matter  of  faith  '  ]  so  that  the  head  also  may  fulfil  toward 
the  children  what  is  becoming.'  They  then  speak  of  the 
Emperor  having  confirmed  '  the  judgment  of  your  Holiness  as 
a  law,'  as  a  counterpart  to  the  confirmation  which  they  hope 
for  from  the  Pope.  The  Imperial  ratification  of  the  Papal 
judgment  in  the  matter  of  faith  was,  of  course,  in  the  civil 
order,  making  it  legally  binding.  But  they  ask  for  a  similar 
confirmation  of  the  matter  of  discipline  from  Leo  in  the 
ecclesiastical  order,  and  adduce,  as  a  proof  that  they  have 
not  acted  in  the  way  of  favouritism  or  party  spirit,  but  with 
the  divine  approval,  the  fact  that  *  we  have  made  known  to 
you  all  the  force  of  our  transactions  for  our  own  establish- 
ment [or  consistency]*  and  for  the  confirmation  and  agree- 
ment with  [or  sanction  ^  of]  what  we  have  done.' 

Now  for  Dr.  Bright's  translation.     He  says  (the  italics 

>  (Tvaraffiv  =  making  compact,  consolidating.  The  ordinary  Latin 
version  of  the  letter  has  '  ad  comprobationem  nostras  sinceritatis,'  which 
is  a  gloss  rather  than  a  translation.  The  older  Latin  translation  has 
'  consistentiam.'  I  can  find  no  authority  for  the  gloss  in  the  first  men- 
tioned translation. 

2  (TvyKardQeaiv  =  agreement  of  any  kind.  Here,  being  connected  with 
fie^aiuio-iv,  it  probably  =  sanction.  Cf.  Liddell  and  Scott,  s.v.  The  older 
Latin  version  has  disjyositionem,  which  is  a  word  betokening  authority. 


DR.   BRIGHT   AND   LETTER   OF   SYNOD   TO   LEO   373 

are  mine),  '  They  requested  him  to  honour  the  decision  by 
adding  his  own  vote  [i/^r/c^ots,  plural]  andl  so  to  "  confirm  and 
assent  to "  what  had  been  done  *'  by  the  (Ecumenical 
Council,"  and,  as  they  do  not  shrink  from  adding,  "  under 
the  guidance  of  a  Divine  command  "  ;  and  accordingly  they 
"  make  known  to  him  the  whole  purport  (Swa/xtv)  of  their 
proceedings  "  '  (Boman  See,  pp.  206,  207). 

Let  us  take  this  rendering  point  by  point. 

(a)  7rapaKaXovfji€v  is  transformed  into  '  request.'  On  p. 
278,  note  S  Dr.  Bright  twice  insists  that  this  word  (Lat. 
ohsecramur)  means  urgent  entreaty.  Why  not  here,  as  it 
does  so  often,  indeed  generally  ? 

(/?)  TifXTjaov  Kol  rats  o-ats  \prj^oL<i  tyjv  Kpiaiv  is  ingeniously 
rendered  '  honour  the  decision  by  adding  his  own  [your 
own]  vote.'  Now  i/^7/(^ots  (the  plural)  had  been  already  used 
in  this  very  letter  for  the  '  sentence  '  passed  upon  Eutyches 
by  Dioscorus,  and  again  the  singular  i/^Ty^ov  had  been  used  for 
the  sentence  which  Dioscorus  brought  upon  himself  by  his 
misdeeds.  Dr.  Bright  has  himself  elsewhere  twice  translated 
\prj(fiov  '  sentence '  (Boman  See,  pp.  163,  166),  and  has  also 
deduced  an  argument  from  the  word  if/r]<f>L(r€TaL  as  meaning 

*  will  pass  sentence.'  The  Latin  translation  is  '  decretis  '  in 
Mansi,  vii.  1098,  and  '  sententiis  '  in  the  older  Latin  version 
of  the  letter  {ib.  1133).  Why,  then,  does  Dr.  Bright  trans- 
late Kttt  .   .  .  rats  a-als  if/-q(f)oi^  '  by  adding  your  vote  '  ? 

(y)  The  words  *  confirm  and  assent  to '  are  closely  con- 
nected by  our  critic  with  those  words  about  honouring  the 

*  decision  '  with  his  '  vote,'  whereas  in  the  original  the  lines 
about  the  Imperial  confirmation  intervene,  giving  a  certain 
complexion  of  authority  to  the  word  '  confirm '  by  the 
parallelism.  The  effect  of  the  omission  is  obvious.  Also  the 
words  '  by  the  CEcumenical  Council,'  are  between  inverted 
commas  as  though  they  were  a  quotation,  whereas  they  do 
not  exist  in  the  original,  and  they  suggest  that  the  Council 
was  oecumenical  in  its  decision,  without  the  Pope.  And, 
translating  Oetio  vivixan  as  *  by  a  Divine  command,'  our  critic 


374  APPENDIX   I 

adds  :  '  And  accordingly  they  make  known  to  him  the  whole 
pm'port  of  their  proceedings.'  And  here  Dr.  Bright  stops, 
instead  of  going  on  to  the  words  that  immediately  follow, 
viz.  *  for  our  own  consolidation  [or  for  our  consistency]  and 
for  the  confirmation  and  sanction  of  [or  assent  to]  what  we 
have  done.'  These  crucial  words,  not  exhibited  by  our 
critic  in  English,  appear  only  in  Greek  in  a  note.  And  yet 
it  is  the  application  '  for  the  purpose  of  ratification  and 
assent '  or  (since  this  would  be  such  an  anticlimax)  *  ratifi- 
cation and  sanction '  that  (they  say)  proves  that  they  were 
acting  under  Divine  approval.  I  venture  to  submit  to  any 
impartial  reader  whether  all  this  can  be  called  adhering  to 
the  record. 

(8)  Lastly,  in  regard  to  the  bishops'  assertion  that  to 
Leo  '  had  been  committed  by  the  Saviour  the  guardianship 
of  the  Vine,'  Dr.  Bright  adds  by  way  of  interpretation,  *  to 
him  conspicuously  and  eminently,  as  holding  a  [sic]  primary 
place,  but  certainly  not  in  a  sense  generically  unique  ;  for  they 
themselves  had  received  authority  both'to  root  up  and  to  plant, 
and  they  treated  the  '  "  definition  "  as  their  own  '  (p.  205). 

The  '  certainly  not '  (if  the  words  are  meant  to  deny 
supreme  authority)  cannot  be  extracted  from  what  the 
bishops  say.  Consider  the  context.  They  make  the  climax 
of  Dioscorus's  madness  to  consist  in  his  actually  extending 
it  to  *  the  very  person  (avrov  tov)  who  has  been  entrusted  by 
the  Saviour  with  the  guardianship  of  the  Vine  '  :  words  which, 
occurring  in  such  a  context,  do  certamly  convey  the  im- 
pression of  at  least  a  unique  relationship  to  the  Vine.  This 
much  Dr.  Bright  appears  to  admit.  But  seeing  that  the 
unique  relationship  is  in  the  matter  of  guardianship  to  the 
whole  Vine,  the  statement  that  others  had  authority  to  do 
the  work  of  gardeners  in  that  vineyard,  cannot  be  held  to 
counterbalance  the  impression  of  supreme  authority  con- 
veyed by  the  mention  of  the  '  guardianship  of  the  Vine.' 
If  we  take  the  words  by  themselves,  they  only  speak  of  a 
delegated    authority    (i^ovatav)    which    may    be   either   by 


DR.  BRIGHT  AND  LETTER  OF  SYNOD  TO  LEO  375 

immediate  or  by  indirect  delegation  ;  whereas  if  we  go  outside 
the  words  of  the  letter,  we  have  to  remember  that  they  had 
entered  in  the  '  Acts  '  their  sentence  as  delivered  by  Pas- 
chasinus,  that  Dioscorus  was  stripped  of  his  episcopate  by 
Leo,  in  concert  with  Peter  the  foundation  of  the  Catholic 
Church,  acting  by  the  Synod  as  his  instrument  (supra,  p.  246). 
In  the  words  following  the  statement  about  the  guardian- 
ship of  the  Vine,  the  bishops  say  of  Leo,  *  who  didst  hasten 
to  unite  the  body  of  the  Church,'  thus  reverting  to  their 
metaphor  about  the  head  and  the  members.  Whether  this 
is  a  position  '  generically  unique  '  may  be  questioned,  but  at 
least  such  a  guardianship  is  unique  and  specificaJly  pre- 
eminent, which  is  sufficient  to  satisfy  the  Vatican  decree. 

As  for  the  bishops  'treating  the  "definition"  as  their 
own,'  it  was  of  course  their  own  qicd  Conciliar.  Yet  they 
call  it  (as  Dr.  Bright  should  not  have  omitted  to  notice) 
distinctly  in  this  letter  '  the  decision  of  your  Holiness,'  and 
also  distinctly  state  that  they  were  able  to  make  it  through 
Leo  '  being  interpreter  of  the  voice  of  Peter  to  all,  and 
bringing  to  all  the  blessedness  of  Peter's  faith,  luJience  we 
showed  forth,  &c.' 

To  sum  up.  The  steps,  as  we  find  them,  in  this  letter, 
so  full  of  doctrine  as  to  the  government  of  the  Church,  are 
as  follows  :— (1)  Christ  brought  the  knowledge  of  the  Lord 
from  Heaven.  (2)  Leo,  by  the  ordinance  of  the  Lawgiver 
extended  the  golden  chain  of  teaching  to  the  bishops,  and 
this  as  being  appointed  ^  the  interpreter,  to  all,  of  the  voice 
of  Peter.  (3)  The  bishops  consequently  {o6iv)  proclaimed 
it  to  the  world  by  an  harmonious  confession.  (4)  The  Em- 
peror confirmed  it  in  the  civil  order. ^  As  for  the  relation  of 
Alexandria  and  Antioch  to  Constantinople  expressed  in  their 
twenty-eighth  canon,  they  pretended  that  it  might  be  con- 
sidered to  have  been  initiated  to  all  intents  and  purposes  by  Leo, 

'   Kadicrafxcvos. 

^  The  Emperors  are  spoken  of  as  TTjf  tj)?  aria  d<Tiuri]Tos,  ws  v6nov, 
fie^aiwcai^Tes  Kpiaiv  [Ep.  98,  §  5,  and  Mansi,  vii.  1009). 


376  APPENDIX   I 

because  his  goodwill  was  sure  to  sanction  it ;  but  they  now 
apply  for  its  ratification,  as  a  measure  which  pleased  the 
Emperor  and  Senate  and  all  the  city,  and  as  something  that 
was  not  the  offspring  of  likes  and  dislikes,  since  they  have 
sent  it  for  his  confirmation  and  assent,  or  sanction,  as  well 
as  for  their  own  consolidation  (ets  o-vo-rao-tv  rjfxcripav  kol  tcui/ 

Trap'  rjfxojv  TrtTrpayfievoiv  fiaftaiWdLV  re  kol  crvyKaTaOefTiv). 

That  this  which  I  have  given  is  the  true  interpretation  is 
placed  beyond  reasonable  doubt  by  the  words  of  Anatolius 
written  in  454.  He  was  one  of  the  writers,  probably  the 
real  author,  of  this  letter  which  we  have  been  considering, 
and  in  his  letter  to  Leo  he  says  that  '  all  the  force  and  con- 
firmation of  what  was  done  was  reserved  for  the  authority  ' 
of  Leo.^  This  is  a  categorical  statement  by  the  archbishop, 
who  was  president  at  the  session,  as  to  a  matter  of  fact,  and 
must  be  considered  decisive.  Indeed,  but  for  this,  we 
cannot  imagine  the  letter  of  the  bishops  being  written  at  all. 
For  it  is  not  merely  that  expression  after  expression  indi- 
cates their  sense  of  Leo's  authority,  but  the  sum  and 
substance,  the  very  basis,  of  the  letter,  consists  in  an 
endeavour  to  gain  the  assent  of  a  superior  authority.  The 
letter,  then,  cannot  be  regarded  as  a  mere  farce,  as  an  attempt 
to  gain  the  assent  of  an  equal  in  authority  by  proclaiming 
him  in  every  sentence  their  superior.  Nor  would  Anatolius 
give  away  his  case  in  his  accompanying  letter,  and — which  is 
beyond  words  significant — again  two  years  later,  when  he 
wrote  in  the  same  strain.  Dr.  Bright's  suggestion  that  the 
canon  was  sent  to  Rome  because  it  '  mentions  the  See  of 
Rome  and  because  they  expressly  assign  a  cause  for  the 
privileges  which  had  been  "  given  "  to  it '  {Roman  See,  p.  206) 
is  futile  to  the  last  degree.  This  would  be  to  suggest  that 
it  was  a  new  thing  thus  to  speak.  And  there  is  not  a  word 
in  the  letter  to  justify  it.  They  actually  begin  their  letter 
with  another  reason — nothing  less  than  the  Saviour's  ap- 
pointment. 

'  Leon.  Ep.  132. 


DR.   BRIGHT   AND   LETTER   OF   SYNOD   TO   LEO    377 

It  is  true  that  they  did  not  act  up  to  their  words.  But 
acts  do  not  always  say  more  than  words  in  explaining  what 
people  hold  to  be  true.  Acts  evince  the  working  of  love  or 
its  opposite  ;  they  may  be  the  expression  of  rebellion  ;  but 
faith  is  a  distinct  thing  from  charity  in  the  teaching  of  the 
Catholic  Church.  Anyhow  here  are  both  action  and  language : 
the  act  of  sending  their  canon  and  the  words  explaining 
why  they  sent  it.  Both  show  that  these  prelates  believed 
that  a  canon  had  not  established  itself  in  the  life  of  the 
Church  until  it  had  received  the  sanction  of  the  Apostolic 
See,  where,  as  the  archbishop  and  bishops  of  the  province 
of  Canterbury  said  in  1413,  '  such  causes  ought  to  be  ter- 
minated.' ^  The  Greek  historian  had  said  more  than  a 
thousand  years  before  that  no  canon  could  be  made  for  the 
Church  without  the  judgment  of  the  Bishop  of  Rome 
(Socrates,  Hist.  Eccl.  ii.  8). 

'  Wilkins,  Concilia,  iii,  350. 


APPENDIX  II 

THE  EPISTLE  OF  LEO  TO  FLAVIAN  {COMMONLY  CALLED 
THE  '  TOME  ' ')  IRBEFORMABLE  FROM  ITS  FIRST  PRO- 
MULGATION BY  LEO. 

The  position  maintained  by  our  Anglican  friends  is  that  it 
was  at  the  4th  Session  at  Chalcedon  that  *  the  Tome  was 
solemnly  accepted  by  the  Council'  (Boman  See,ip.  186),  and 
that  it  was  not  part  of  the  rule  of  the  Catholic  faith  until 
then.  Dr.  Bright  argues  that  as  Cyril's  letters  were  ad- 
mittedly not  irreformable  before  the  Council  of  Ephesus  set 
its  seal  upon  them  and  thereby  erected  them  to  the  position 
of  Church  standards,  so  with  the  Tome  of  Leo  at  the 
Council  of  Chalcedon.  It  was  not  (he  maintains)  a 
standard  of  faith  until  then.  The  special  proof  of  this  is  to 
be  found,  according  to  Dr.  Bright,  in  the  reason  given  by  the 
bishops  for  their  subscriptions  to  the  Tome  at  the  fourth 
session  of  Chalcedon.  It  was  a  *  real  judgment '  passed  at 
Ephesus  on  Cyril's  letters,  and  it  was  the  judgment  of  a 
superior  authority  ;  it  must,  therefore  (he  argues),  have  been 
the  same  in  the  case  of  Leo's  Tome,  because  the  expressions 
used  in  passing  judgment  are  in  both  cases  identical.  In 
the  latter  case,  the  formal  declarations  made  by  the  bishops 
signify,  according  to  Dr.  Bright,  that  they  '  accept  the  Tome 
because   they   personally   believe   it   to    be   conformable  to 

'  A  '  Tome,'  as  has  already  been  remarked,  is  a  doctrinal  formulary. 
The  word  itself  means '  a  part  of  a  book  written  and  rolled  up  by  itself,' 
a  '  volume.'     Liddell  and  Scott,  s.v. 


THE   EPISTLE   OF   LEO   TO   FLAVIAN  379 

Church  standards,  just  as  their  predecessors  had  dealt  with 
Cyril's  letter ;  and  thus  by  their  act  it  acquires  a  place  among 
Church  standards  '  {Roman  See,  p.  188,  189). 

These  concluding  words,  which  I  have  italicised,  contain 
the  pith  of  the  matter.  Much  in  the  preceding  sentences  is 
of  the  nature  of  an  ignoratio  elenchi.  No  one  denies  that  the 
judgment  of  the  bishops  on  the  Tome  was  a  real  judgment. 
Neither  is  it  denied  that  the  bishops  accepted  the  Tome  of 
Leo  because  it  was  conformable  to  Church  standards. 
What  we  do  deny  is  that  the  judgment  was  that  of  superiors 
or  equals,  or  that  it  involved  the  liberty  of  disagreeing  and 
yet  remaining  within  the  Church  or  that  they  thought  this 
liberty  possible  :  in  other  words,  the  Tome  was  part  of  the 
rule  of  faith  before  its  conciliar  acceptance  at  that  fourth 
session.  We  also  deny  that  the  reason  given  for  their 
judgment  in  the  fourth  session  was  meant  to  comprehend  the 
entire  array  of  motives  by  which  they  were  swayed  :  or  that 
it  involved  the  belief  that  the  See  of  Peter  could  go  wrong 
under  such  circumstances.  We  maintain  that  the  bishops 
merely  aggregated  their  judgment  to  that  of  the  Apostolic 
See ;  and  as  St.  Leo  himself  put  forth  his  Tome  as  in 
conformity  with  the  Nicene  faith,  so  the  fathers  in  Council 
adopted  the  same  mode  of  expression,  and  certified  to  their 
own  orthodoxy  rather  than  guaranteed  that  of  Leo.  But 
they  did  not  say  so  without  having  read  the  Tome  and 
without  having,  indeed,  carefully  examined  it,  so  that  their 
subscription  to  it  was  not  a  blind  act,  but  an  intelligent  ad- 
hesion to  an  authoritative  exposition.  As  they  said  totidem 
verbis,  Leo  was  their  guide  in  the  matter  :  '  Thou  wast  made 
the  interpreter  of  the  voice  of  blessed  Peter  to  us  all,  and 
didst  bring  to  all  the  blessing  of  his  faith.  Whence  we  also 
show  the  inheritance  of  truth  to  the  children  of  the  Church ' 
{Leon.  Ep.  98,  i.).  His  Tome  was  the  lux  prcefulgens,  as 
Vigilius  called  it,  a  kind  of  technical  conciliar  expression  for 
a  guiding  light,  determining  the  course  of  action  :  words 
used  of   the   Imperial   order    at  the    Council    of   Ephesus 


380  APPENDIX   II 

(Mansi,  iv.  1261)  and  of  the  Nicene  Creed  in  the  Council  of 
Chalcedon's  definition  (Mansi,  vii.  110). 

The  point,  therefore,  to  be  proved  is  this,  viz.  that  it  is 
not  correct  to  say,  as  Dr.  Bright  does,  that  *  by  their  act ' 
(i.e.  by  the  declarations  of  the  bishops  in  the  fourth  session) 
*it  [the  Tome  of  Leo]  acquired  a  place  among  Church 
standards '  just  as  Cyril's  letters  did  at  the  Council  of 
Ephesus  {Boman  See,  p.  189).  We  say  that  it  already  held 
that  position  by  reason  of  its  emanating  with  such  solemnity 
from  the  See  of  Peter. 

Dr.  Bright's  account  is  not  clear  in  this  particular 
passage  on  one  point,  i.e.  as  to  the  time  when  the  signatures 
were  affixed  to  the  Tome.  It  looks  as  if  by  *  their  act '  he 
meant  *  by  their  subscriptions '  as  well  as  by  their  declara- 
tions. It  must,  however,  be  remembered  that  the  '  subscrip- 
tions '  themselves  to  which  the  bishops  alluded  in  the  fourth 
session  were  not  given  at  that  time  at  all,  but  previously — 
in  some  few  (very  few)  cases  in  the  house  of  Anatolius,  in 
others  at  an  earlier  date.  Bearing  this  in  mind,  it  is  capable 
of  demonstration  that  before  the  bishops  entered  the  Council 
the  Tome  of  Leo  had  obtained  oecumenical  acceptance. 
The  voice  of  the  Church  diffused  had  spoken  clearly ;  and 
the  Church  in  Council  cannot  contradict  the  voice  of  the 
Church  dispersed  throughout  the  world.  The  Tome  was, 
therefore,  irreformable  on  that  account  alone,  were  there  no 
other  reason,  before  the  Council  met.  The  following  proofs 
will  suffice. 

1.  The  bishops  of  Gaul  had  received  the  Tome  in  the 
previous  year  ;  and  three  of  them,  writing  for  an  exact  copy, 
speak  of  this  dogmatic  letter  as  being  already  '  celebrated  in 
the  meetings  of  all  the  Churches,  so  that  it  is  unanimously 
declared  that  the  principate  of  the  Apostolic  See  is  deservedly 
placed  there  whence  the  oracles  of  the  Apostolic  spirit  may 
still  be  unfolded  '  {Leon.  Ep.  68).  And  the  bishops  of  Gaul 
in  a  body  late  in  the  following  year  (451)  speak  of  the  Tome 
as  having  been  already  *  inscribed  on  the  hearts  of  all  who 


THE   EPISTLE   OF  LEO   TO   FLA.VIAN  381 

care  for  the  sacrament  of  redemption,  having  been  committed 
to  memory,  as  a  symbol  of  the  faith.'  Again,  they  write, 
*  Who  would  think  that  he  could  sufficiently  thank  your 
Apostolate  for  such  a  gift,  by  which  it  has  adorned,  not  only 
the  Gauls,  hut  the  luhole  ivorlcl  with  as  it  were  certain  most 
precious  gems  ?  The  faithful  owes  it  to  your  teaching  after 
God  that  he  holds  with  constancy  what  he  believed ;  the 
unbelieving  also  owes  it  [or,  according  to  another  reading, 
'  will  owe  it '  ]  thereto  that  he  departs  from  his  unbelief  and 
acknowledges  the  truth,  and,  penetrated  with  the  light  of  the 
Apostolic  institution,  leaves  the  darkness  of  his  error  and 
rather  follows  and  believes  what  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ 
teaches  by  your  lips  concerning  the  sacrament  of  His  Incar- 
nation '  {Ep.  99).  This  was  before  the  bishops  in  Gaul  had 
received  any  report  of  the  Council  of  Chalcedon.  (Cp.  §  4 
with  Ep.  102.)  It  would  be  difficult  to  express  in  plainer 
terms  their  conviction  of  the  irreformable  character  of  St. 
Leo's  Tome,  before  that  Council  met. 

2.  Eusebius,  the  Bishop  of  Milan,  in  this  same  year 
assembled  a  Synod  and  wrote  to  Leo  on  the  occasion  of  the 
return  of  certain  bishops  from  the  East,  sent  thither  on  the 
affairs  of  Eutyches.  He  then  wrote  to  Leo  in  the  name  of 
the  Synod.  The  letter  is  of  great  importance  as  giving  the 
sense  of  the  West  concerning  the  Tome.  They  speak  of  our 
Lord  providing  for  the  Catholic  faith  *  when  He  placed  you  in 
the  See  of  His  Apostle,  a  suitable  champion  of  His  worship, 
( '  quando  vos  idoneos  cultus  sui  assertores  in  Apostoli  sui 
sede  Praesulem  collocavit,' ),  who  can  both  think  what  is  right 
concerning  the  sacrament  of  the  Lord's  Incarnation  and  still 
more  rightly  guard  the  same.'  Then,  speaking  of  the  Tome, 
the  Synod  says :  *  It  was  clear  that  it  shone  with  the  full 
purity  of  the  faith,  with  the  assertions  of  the  Prophets,  with 
the  authorities  of  the  Evangelists,  and  the  testimonies  of 
Apostolic  teaching,  and  radiated  with  a  certain  brightness  of 
light  and  splendour  of  truth,  and  agreed  with  the  ideas 
which  the  blessed  Ambrose,  incited  by  the  Holy  Spirit,  in- 


382  APPENDIX   II 

serted  in  his  books  concerning  the  mystery  of  the  Lord's 
Incarnation.'  They  then  say  that  all  in  the  Tome  agrees 
with  the  ancient  faith,  and  that  therefore  they  affix  their 
signatures  by  way  of  declaring  that  *  all  who  think  otherwise 
{impie)  ought  to  be  visited  with  befitting  condemnation  ; 
the  sentence  of  your  authority  going  before.  Therefore,  follow- 
ing the  form  of  your  letter,  we  show  by  this  letter,  sent 
through  our  brother-bishop  Cyriacus,  that  we  have  kept  the 
manner  of  the  appointment  prescribed,'  i.e.  have  observed 
the  appointed  form  prescribed  by  the  Pope.  In  other  words 
his  Tome  was  *  a  lamp  to  their  feet '  (Ps.  cxviii.  105).  They 
conclude  with  saying  that  in  future  ages  it  will  be  felt  that 
this  contumacious  sect  was  permitted  to  arise  when  it  did, 
'  that  it  might  be  for  ever  overthrown  by  your  guardianship  ' 
('  ut  vobis  propugnatoribus  in  aeternum  prostrata  succum- 
beret,'  Ep.  97,  Bailer.).' 

It  is  clear,  after  this,  that  when  the  Council  of  Chalcedon 
met,  the  Tome  of  Leo  was  already  of  faith  in  the  West ;  for 
these  words,  like  those  of  the  bishops  of  Gaul,  were  written 
before  that  Council's  decision  had  reached  the  West. 

3.  Let  us  now  turn  to  the  East,  and  we  shall  see  that 
on  all  sides  the  Tome  had  been  accepted  before  that  fourth 
session,  indeed  before  the  Council  began. 

(a).  Leo  himself,  in  writing  to  the  Eastern  Emperor 
Theodosius,  treats  his  Tome  as  an  irrevocable  exposition  of 
the  faith.  He  tells  him  that  he  has  sent  legates  to  Ephesus, 
and  speaks  of  the  case  of  Eutyches  as  one  not  to  be  dealt 
with  in  the  Council  in  a  way  that  would  imply  any  doubt 
about  his  heresy,  adding  that  Eutyches  himself  had  promised 
to  correct  himself  in  accordance  with  whatever  Leo's  sen- 
tence disapproved  of  in  his  opinions  ;  and  that  '  the  letter 
which  I  have  sent  to  our  brother  and  fellow-bishop  Flavian 
\i.e.   the  Tome]   fully   contains  what  the  Catholic   Church 

'  Muzzarelli,  De  Auct.  Rom.  Pont.  ii.  88,  noticed  that  Bossuet,  or  the 
author  of  the  Def.  Gleri  Gallic.  Pt.  III.  lib.  vii.  c.  17,  omitted  the  word 
prcBcedcnte,  and  the  last  words  quoted — a  fatal  omission. 


THE   EPISTLE   OF   LEO  TO   FLAVIAN  383 

universally  believes  and  teaches  concerning  the  sacrament  of 
the  Lord's  Incarnation '  {EjJ.  29). 

To  the  Council  itself  Leo  writes  saying  that  the  Emperor 
wished  '  the  authority  of  the  Apostolic  See  to  be  applied  to 
his  decree,'  and  that  he  '  desired  to  have  the  confession  of 
Peter  declared  as  it  were  by  the  most  blessed  Peter  him- 
self,' i.e.  by  the  See  of  Peter.  He  assumes  that  Eutyches 
has  erred  from  the  faith  (cap.  i.).  He  describes  the  Council 
as  assembled  '  that  all  error  may  be  abohshed  by  a  fuller 
judgment.'  He  does  not  say  that  its  object  is  to  investi- 
gate the  truth,  or  decide  upon  the  faith,  but  to  abolish  error, 
by  more  numerous  judges — the  idea  being  that  they  would 
add  their  witness  and  take  the  case  of  the  individual  into 
account.  His  legates  are  sent  that  in  his  stead  *  they  may 
decide,  by  a  sentence  in  common  with  you,  what  may  be 
pleasing  to  God,  that,  pestiferous  error  being  condemned, 
the  restitution  of  him  [Eutyches]  who  has  foohshly  erred 
may  be  dealt  with,  if  at  least  (tamen)  embracing  the  teach- 
ing of  truth  he  shall  have  fully  and  openly  with  his  own 
voice  and  subscription  condemned  the  heretical  views  in 
which  his  folly  had  been  entangled,  and  this  he  actually 
promised  in  the  petition  sent  to  us,  engaging  to  follow  in  all 
things  our  judgment '  ('  sententia,'  dTroc/xxo-co-t).  He  then 
says  that  he  had  written  to  Flavian  more  fully  about  what 
that  prelate  had  referred  to  him,  '  so  that,  the  error  which 
appears  to  have  arisen  being  destroyed,  there  may  be  one 
faith  and  one  and  the  same  confession  through  the  whole 
world,  to  the  praise  and  glory  of  God  '  {Ep.  33). 

Nothing  can  be  clearer  than  that  Leo  required  the 
Council  to  regard  Eutyches  as  a  heretic  unless  he  retracted, 
and  that  his  own  teaching  was  to  be  the  basis  of  any  judg- 
ment passed.  That  is  to  say,  it  was  to  be  the  guiding  light, 
lux  prcefulgens,  the  '  lamp  to  their  feet.' 

Again,  he  writes  to  the  Council  of  Chalcedon  saying  that 
he  is  present  in  his  legates — *  and  I  am  not  wanting  in  the 
proclamation  of  the  CathoHc  faith,  so  that  you  who  cannot 


384  APPENDIX   II 

be  ignorant  of  what  we  believe  in  accordance  with  ancient 
tradition,  may  not  doubt  what  our  wish  is.'  And  *  let  not 
that  be  allowed  a  defence  which  it  is  not  permitted  to 
believe,  since  in  accordance  with  the  authority  of  the 
Evangelists,  the  voices  of  the  Prophets,  and  the  teaching  of 
the  Apostles,  the  holy  and  pure  confession  concerning  the 
Incarnation  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  has  been  most  fully 
and  clearly  declared  by  the  letter  which  we  sent  to  Flavian 
of  blessed  memory  '  {Ep.  93). 

Clearly  the  writer  of  these  words  did  not  contemplate 
the  bishops  sitting  in  judgment  as  superiors  on  this  irre- 
vocable decision  as  to  the  true  faith. 

{(3)  The  Emperor  Marcian  took  the  same  view  of  Leo's 
Tome.  He  describes  the  object  of  the  Council  as  the 
furtherance  of  the  Christian  religion  by  the  declaration  of 
what  would  conduce  to  the  Catholic  faith,  '  as  your  Holiness 
has  defined  in  accordance  with  the  ecclesiastical  canons,' 
KaOui<;  Tj  err]  dyiuiavvr)  Kara  tovs  €KK\r]crLa(TTLKOv<;  Kavova?  StervTrwcrc 
(Lat.  definivit)   (Ep.   76). 

(y)  The  Empress  Pulcheria  at  the  same  time  spoke  of 
the  Council  as  about  to  decide  concerning  the  Catholic  con- 
fession '  by  your  authority,'  o-ov  avd€VTovvTo<s  bpiaoicriv.  She 
had  already  spoken  with  satisfaction  of  Anatolius  having 
signed  the  Tome  {Ep.  11). 

(8)  Flavian  himself,  the  (afterwards)  martyred  Bishop  of 
Constantinople,  had  sent  the  Tome  to  the  metropolitans  all 
round  to  be  signed  (Mansi,  vii.  92).  And  he  held  as  a  matter 
of  principle  that  the  whole  matter  could  be  settled  by  Leo 
himself :  '  For  so  the  heresy  which  has  arisen,  and  the  trouble 
consequent  upon  it,  will  be  easily  brought  to  an  end  through 
the  Divine  assistance  by  your  holy  letter  '  {Leon.  Ep.  26). 

All  this  was  in  accordance  with  what  St.  Peter 
Chrysologus,  the  great  Bishop  of  Eavenna,  wrote  to 
Eutyches :  *  We  exhort  you  to  listen  obediently  to  the 
things  written  by  the  most  blessed  Pope  of  the  city  of 
Eome,  since  blessed  Peter,  who  lives  and  presides  in  his 


THE   EPISTLE   OF   LEO   TO   FLAVIAN  385 

own  see,  gives  to  those  who  seek,  the  truth  of  the  faith ' 
(Leon.  Ep.  25).  This  was  said  before  the  Tome  was  known 
to  have  been  written,  and  it  stamped  it  with  infaUibihty 
beforehand. 

4.  And  now  for  the  Council  of  Chalcedon  itself,  (i)  In 
the  first  session,  when  dealing  with  St.  Flavian's  condemna- 
tion by  Dioscorus,  the  fathers  prove  the  orthodoxy  of 
Flavian  by  the  mere  fact  that  he  was  in  accord  with  the 
Tome  of  Leo — *  since  the  exposition  of  the  faith  agrees  with 
the  letter  of  the  most  blessed  and  apostolic  man,  the  Pope  of 
Kome,'  are  the  words  of  Paschasinus  ;  '  since  the  faith  of 
Flavian  of  holy  memory  agrees  with  the  Apostolic  See  and 
the  tradition  of  the  Fathers,'  are  the  words  of  Lucentius  ; 
*  Archbishop  Flavian  of  holy  memory  expounded  the  faith 
rightly  and  in  agreement  with  the  most  blessed  and  holy 
Archbishop  Leo,'  said  Maximus  of  Antioch,  adding  *  and  we 
all  eagerly  receive  it,'  i.  e.  that  same  faith.  Some  of  the 
bishops  then  testified  to  the  agreement  of  Flavian  with  the 
teaching  of  Cyril  (Mansi,  vi.  680,  681).  The  Tome  of  Leo 
was,  then,  already  on  a  par  with  the  teaching  of  Cyril,  which 
had  received  Papal,  conciliar,  and  universal  sanction.  It  was 
part  of  the  rule  of  faith.  As  Evagrius  of  Antioch  says,  it 
was  already  '  a  standard  of  orthodox  belief '  (op^oSo^ta?  opov, 
H.  E.  ii.  §  2). 

(ii)  Again,  in  the  second  session,  the  fathers  had  said  that 
a  *  norm'  or  authoritative  rule  (tvVo?)  had  been  given  them 
by  the  Tome  of  Leo  *  and  we  follow  him  [or,  we  go  by  it] ; 
we  have  all  signed  the  epistle '  or  Tome ;  and  Florentius 
said  that  those  who  had  signed  the  Tome  needed  no  *  cor- 
rection '  of  their  faith ;  and  both  he  and  Cecropius  placed 
together  the  letter  of  Cyril  (admittedly  of  faith)  and  also  the 
Tome,  as  all  equally  confirmatory  of  the  faith  (Mansi,  vi.  954). 
In  that  same  session  the  Nicene  Creed  was  read,  and  also 
the  Constantinopolitan,  two  letters  of  Cyril's,  and  the  Tome 
of  Leo,  and  after  each  of  them  the  fathers  said  *  This  is  the 

c  c 


386  APPENDIX   II 

faith  of  all  of  us,'  adding  in  the  case  of  Leo's  Tome,  *  Peter 
has  spoken  these  things  through  Leo '  (Mansi,  vi.  972). 

It  is  therefore,  impossible  for  anyone  who  has  regard  to 
the  history  of  the  whole  matter,  to  maintain  with  Dr. 
Bright  and  others  that  by  the  '  bishops'  act '  in  the  fourth 
session  of  Chalcedon  the  Tome  of  Leo  '  acquired  a  place 
among  Church  standards.'  We  must  therefore  find  some 
other  meaning  for  the  declarations  of  the  bishops  in  that 
session  to  the  effect  that  they  signed  the  Tome  because  it 
was  in  accordance  with  the  Nicene  faith.  Whatever  their 
meaning,  it  could  not  have  been  that  they  were  then  settling 
the  authoritative  nature  of  that  Papal  utterance.  Indeed 
when  Paschasinus,  the  Papal  legate,  said  that  he  had  signed 
the  Epistle  to  Flavian  because  it  agreed  with  previous 
standards  it  is  certain  that  he,  at  any  rate,  was  not  saying 
that  he  had  examined  it  as  something  that  might  have  dis- 
agreed with  the  same,  or  that  he  had  ever  felt  himself  free 
to  repudiate  its  authority. 

What,  then,  was  the  meaning  of  these  declarations? 
Mansi  expresses  it  thus  :  '  They  did  not  approve  that  Epistle,' 
i.e.  the  Tome  of  Leo,  '  as  though  without  their  appro- 
bation it  lacked  anything  in  the  way  of  irrefragable 
authority,  but  to  show  that  they  themselves  fully  recog- 
nised in  it  the  traditional  faith  of  the  Lord's  Incarna- 
tion '  (Nat.  Alex.  ix.  525).  What  sort  of  examination 
they  gave  to  it,  we  do  not  know  ;  there  was  no  conciliar 
examination,  but  merely  a  private  examination  by  a  few  for 
the  purpose  of  convincing  some  bishops  who  had  difficulties 
about  two  or  three  expressions,  while  even  these  distinctly  and 
emphatically  said  that  they  did  not  doubt  Leo's  complete 
orthodoxy,  meaning  his  orthodoxy  as  expressed  in  the  Tome 
(Mansi,  vii.  29).  The  examination,  such  as  it  was,  '  served,' 
as  Mansi  comments,  '  for  a  better  understanding  of  the 
words,  but  not  because  there  was  room  to  doubt  concerning 
what  had  already  been  defined'  (Nat.  Alex.  ix.  526).  It 
had  been  alleged  that  those  who  condemned  Eutyches  were 


THE   EPISTLE  OF  LEO  TO   FLAVIAN  387 

unfaithful  to  the  teaching  of  Cyril.  No,  said  the  bishops  in 
effect ;  we  have  each  one  of  us  perused  the  great  docu- 
ment, and  we  find  this  allegation  untrue  ;  the  Tome  is,  as  a 
matter  of  fact,  in  perfect  accord  with  that  teaching  and  in 
signing  it  we  signed  what  we  knew  to  be  in  harmony  with 
Nicaea  and  Ephesus.  We  were  guided  by  Leo ;  we  followed 
him ;  he  was  (to  quote  again  their  own  words  in  their  letter 
to  Leo)  '  the  interpreter  to  us  of  the  voice  of  blessed  Peter ' 
{Leon.  Ep.  98).  But  we  signed  after  discerning  for  our- 
selves the  harmony  between  Cyril  and  Leo  (Mansi,  vii.  44). 
We  compared  his  letter  with  the  other  standards  of  the 
faith  and  their  agreement  was  clear. 

The  question  of  Papal  infallibility  was  not  before  them. 
Their  declaration  was  in  answer  to  the  demand  of  the 
Imperial  Commissioners  that  they  should  each  say  whether 
the  Creed  of  Niccea  tvas  in  accordance  with  the  letter  of  Leo 
(Mansi,  vii.  9).  Now,  as  it  would  be  absurd  to  argue  from  this 
expression  that  Leo  was  placed  above  the  Nicene  Creed,  so 
it  would  be  a  gratuitous  assumption  to  say  that  in  using  the 
converse  expression — namely,  that  the  Tome  of  Leo  was  in 
accordance  with  the  Creed  of  Nicaea — they  were  declaring 
that  Leo  might  have  gone  wrong  and  that  on  that  ground 
they  examined  his  Tome. 

Dr.  Bright  in  maintaining  his  thesis  refers  to  Mansi's 
seventh  volume  as  his  authority  {Boman  See,  p.  189).  It  will 
be  of  interest,  therefore,  to  see  from  the  words  of  that  great 
scholar  and  theologian,  when  dealing  with  the  subject,  what  he 
would  have  thought  of  Dr.  Bright's  theory,  which,  of  com'se, 
is  borrowed  from  the  Def.  Cleri  Oallicani.  Mansi  says  that 
quoting  the  words  of  the  bishops  in  the  way  Dr.  Bright 
does  is  *  sticking  to  the  rind,'  not  getting  beyond  the  surface  : 
*  Non  est  hie  in  verborum  cortice  sistendum.'  '  We  are 
not  to  suppose  that  when  the  Synod  compared  the  Epistle 
of  Leo  with  other  Fathers  and  preceding  Councils,  it  could 
have  doubted  concerning  it  and  that  it  gave  judgment  as 
a  superior.     From  what  took  place  before  the  Council  and 

cc  2 


388  APPENDIX   II 

until  the  Council  was  finished,  it  always  appears  that  the 
Epistle  of  Leo  was  bound  to  be  observed  as  a  rule  of  the  faith 
to  be  defined '  (Mansi,  in  Nat.  Alex.  H.  E.  vol.  ix.  Diss.  xii. 
Animadversiones,  §  iii.  17). 

The  objection  drawn  from  the  bishops  saying  that  they 
signed  the  Tome  because  it  was  in  accord  with  the  Nicene 
Creed,  instead  of  merely  saying  that  it  came  from  the  See 
of  Peter,  has  been  well  answered  in  these  words  :  *  It  has 
often  been  remarked  that  the  general  practice  of  the  Church 
in  enacting  a  decree  of  faith  is  to  declare  the  doctrine  to 
be  in  agreement  with  the  doctrine  laid  down  by  the  Fathers 
and  the  (Ecumenical  Councils,  and  therefore,  when  the 
irreformable  character  of  a  canon  of  faith  [already]  sanc- 
tioned by  a  General  Synod  is  spoken  of,  this  reason  is 
alleged  and  not  the  infallibility  of  the  assembly  by  which  it 
was  decreed.  In  proof  of  this,  it  will  be  enough  to  refer  to 
the  answer  which  many  bishops,  scattered  over  all  parts  of 
the  Church,  gave  to  the  Emperor  Leo,  when  con-suited  by 
him  as  to  the  irreformability  of  the  doctrines  sanctioned  in 
the  Synod  of  Chalcedon.  They  did  not  say  [what  never- 
theless they  unquestionably  held]  that  the  Synod  was 
the  voice  of  the  Church,  and  that  for  this  reason  its 
decrees  could  not  admit  of  reformation  ;  they  only  said 
that  the  Council  had  not  imposed  any  doctrine  beyond 
that  defined  at  Nicsea  and  confirmed  by  the  following 
Councils  '  (P.  Bottalla,  S.J.,  The  Infallibility  of  the  Pope, 
1870,  p.  227  ;  cf  also  Mansi,  vii.  539-619).  MuzzareUi 
also,  in  the  end  of  the  last  century,  entered  into  this 
same  question  in  his  refutation  of  Bossuet,  or  the  author 
of  the  Defensio  Cleri  Gallicani,  and  ends  with  saying : 
*  Behold  the  verification  of  the  promises  of  Christ,  who 
is  always  present  loith  the  Pontiff  when  defining  and  ivith 
the  brethren  universally,  so  that  they  may  confirm  with  their 
assent  what  the  Supreme  Pontiff  has  previously  defined ; 
so  that  one  can  have  no  doubt  about  the  assent  of  the 
brethren  being  given  to  the  definition  of  the  head ;  so  that 


THE   EPISTLE   OF   LEO   TO   FLAVIAN  389 

the  same  Lord  gives  inerrancy  to  the  consent  of  the  brethren 
in  general  and  to  the  definition  of  the  head  in  particular  ; 
so  that  that  chimerical  [notion  of]  dissidence  (discissio) 
between  the  head  and  the  brethren  7iever  can  be  realised  in 
matters  of  faith  '  {De  Auctor.  Rom.  Pont.  11.  §  vi.  p.  105). 
St.  Leo  has  ^himself  given  us  a  summary  of  the  w^hole 
matter  in  the  following  words :  '  Those  things  which  He 
[the  Lord]  had  previously  defined  by  our  ministry,  He  con- 
firmed by  the  irreformable  [irretractabili=tha.t  cannot  be 
rehandled  with  a  view  to  being  withdrawn]  assent  of  the 
brethren,  so  as  to  show  that  that  which  was  first  formed  by 
the  first  See  of  all,  and  had  been  received  by  the  judgment 
of  the  whole  Christian  world,  emanated  from  Himself ;  so 
that  the  members  should  agree  with  the  head  &c.'  (Ep. 
120).  Here  are  the  two  steps — first,  the  definition  by  the 
See  of  Peter,  which  loas  of  God — '  the  Lord  had  defined  ' — 
and  was  therefore  irreformable  ;  secondly,  the  reception  by 
the  whole  Christian  world,  the  members  agreeing  with  their 
head,  so  that  by  a  twofold  emphasis  the  decision  should  be 
seen  to  be  of  God.  And  the  result  is,  according  to  Leo  in 
the  same  passage,  that  by  this  agreement  of  the  members  and 
head  *  our  material  for  rejoicing  the  more  increases  and  the 
enemy  the  inore  smites  himself,  as  he  has  the  more  ruth- 
lessly risen  up  against  the  ministers  of  Christ '  ( *  ut  in  hoc 
quoque  capiti  membra  concordent  in  quo  &c.' ).  The  irreform- 
able assent  of  the  brethren  increases,  not  first  produces,  the 
joy  and  the  power  of  vanquishing  heresy. 

So  that,  as  Fr.  Boitalla  says  of  the  proceedings  in  the 
(Ecumenical  Council  of  Ephesus,  *  The  Fathers  sitting  in  a 
General  Council  keep  before  them  as  a  guide  in  their  re- 
searches the  doctrine  defined  by  the  Pope,  and  they  examine 
the  whole  controversy  because  it  is  their  business  to  confute 
the  heretics  and  confirm  and  justify  before  the  world  the 
doctrine  defined  by  the  Roman  Pontiff.  This  doctrine  is 
clearly  seen  in  the  Acts  of  the  Council  of  Ephesus '  {The 
Pope    and    the    Church,   vii.    207).       The   only   difference 


390  APPENDIX  II 

in  the  case  of  the  Council  of  Chalcedon  is  that  the  Tome  of 
Leo  was  not  conciharly  examined,  nearly  580  of  the  bishops 
having  deliberately  refused  to  do  so  (Mansi,  vi.  974) ; 
whatever  examination  these  had  made  of  it  having  been 
completed,  in  many  cases  at  some  previous  time,  and  in 
some  cases  in  the  previous  year.  When  Pope  Vigilius 
speaks  of  the  Tome  '  requiring  these  comparisons  '  he  is 
referring  to  the  comparison  made  in  the  house  of  Anatolius — 
required,  not  for  its  acceptance  by  the  orthodox,  but  for  the 
sake  of  teaching  the  few  bishops  who  could  not  understand 
the  Latin  wording  in  some  places — and  to  the  declarations 
in  the  fourth  session  that  all  the  bishops  in  their  perusal  of 
the  same  had  certified  to  its  conformity  with  the  doctrine 
of  the  previous  Councils.  He  is  arguing  that  the  sanction 
given  by  the  Council  of  Ephesus  to  the  teaching  of  Cyril 
must  be  held  to  be  of  the  highest  character,  because  in 
making  this  comparison  that  teaching  was  put  side  by  side 
with  the  Council  of  Nicaea.  Dr.  Bright  {JRoman  See,  p.  189, 
and  Waymarks,  p.  229)  has  assumed  without  any  warrant 
that  Vigilius  is  speaking  of  an  examination  with  tbe  liberty 
of  revision,  instead  of  merely  for  the  sake  of  elucidating  iis 
harmony  with  previous  standards,  which  falls  within  the 
province  of  a  bishop  as  understood  by  the  Vatican  Council. 
He  seems  to  emphasise  the  word  exigit  instead  of  his  and  to 
give  it  his  own  interpretation.  We  may  conclude  in  the 
words  of  Muzzarelli :  '  Constat  adeo  irreformabilem  [i.e.  the 
Tome]  ante  retractationem  fuisse,  ut  earn  concilium  reformare 
non  posset  nisi  per  apertam  contradictionem  cum  ecclesia 
tum  dispersa  tum  congregata'  (De  Auct.  Bom.  Pont.  ii. 
94).  Leo's  Tome  was  no  more  then  and  there  for  the 
first  time  *  erected  into  a  Church  standard  '  than  the  doctrine 
of  the  Procession  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  already  accepted  (not 
to  mention  previous  decisions)  at  the  Second  Council  of  Lyons, 
could  be  said  to  have  only  attained  the  position  of  a  matter 
of  faith  when,  for  the  purpose  of  convincing  the  Greeks,  it 
was  examined  at  the  Council  of  Florence  {ihid.  p.  103)  ;  or 


THE   EPISTLE   OF   LEO   TO   FLAVIAN  391 

the  doctrine  of  transubstantiation  when  it  was  examined  at 
the  Council  of  Trent — a  doctrine  of  which  our  Archbishop 
Lanfranc  had  already  said,  *  Hanc  fidem  tenuit  a  priscis  tem- 
poribus  et  nunc  tenet  ecclesia,  quae  per  totum  diffusa  orbem 
Catholica  nominatur  '  {Lih.de  Corp.  et  Sang.  Christi,  c.  xviii.), 
and  for  denying  which  the  Province  of  Canterbury  in  1413 
had  excommunicated  Sir  John  Oldcastle  (Wilkins,  Concilia, 
iii.  353  seq.). 

In  each  case  there  was  a  '  true  personal  judgment,'  to 
use  Dr.  Bright's  words  {Waymarks,  p.  229) ;  but  it  was  not 
the  judgment  of  superiors,  nor  with  the  idea  of  possible 
revision,  but  only  for  the  purpose  of  exhibiting  the  Church's 
unity.  In  each  case  there  was  '  confirmation,'  but  in  the 
sense  in  which  the  previous  standards  were  'confirmed,' 
just  as  age  is  said  to  confirm  the  authority  of  truth.  In 
each  case  there  was  '  comparison  '  for  the  sake  of  intelligent 
adhesion,  and  in  each  case  the  adhesion  might  be  said  to 
be  due  to  such  comparison,  though  not  necessarily  to  that 
alone.  When  some  bishops  speak  of  having  *  found  '  that 
the  Tome  agreed  with  the  faith  of  Nicsea,  it  was  not  the 
finding  of  a  superior  court,  nor  a  discovery  after  doubt ;  it 
was  faith  finding  its  confirmation  in  the  order  of  reason — 
fides  qiicerens  intellectum.  If  Dr.  Bright  had  given  a  more 
exhaustive,  or  more  fairly  illustrative,  list  of  the  bishops' 
declarations  in  the  fourth  session,  the  reader  would  become 
aware  that  they  are  clearly  not  speaking  of  themselves  as 
giving  the  judgment  of  superiors  :  as  when  one  says  that 
he  *  consents '  to  the  Niccne  Creed,  the  expression  used  often 
of  their  adhesion  to  Leo's  Tome  (Mansi,  vii.  37) ;  or  when 
another  says  that  he  '  perceives  '  (=finds)  that  *  there  is  no 
difference  between  the  expositions  of  Nicasa  and  those  of 
the  150  fathers  [at  Constantinople]  and  knows  that  the 
letters  of  Cyril  [already  standards]  and  of  Leo  agree  tvith 
these  '  ;  or  when  another  says  that  he  '  finds  '  that  those  things 
which  were  set  forth  (to.  iKreOevra)  in  the  first  Ephesine 
Synod    by  Cyril    [which   were   now   admittedly   standards 


392  APPENDIX   II 

of  faith],  and  further  also  the  letter  of  Leo,  are  in  harmony 
with  the  faith  of  Nicaea  (p.  28) ;  or  when  a  fourth  says  that 
*  the  letter  of  our  father  and  pope,  Leo,  and  the  first  "  Acts  " 
of  our  blessed  father,  Cyril,  at  Ephesus  against  Nestorius, 
agreed  with  the  318  fathers  of  Nicaea,  as  also  did  the  150  in 
Co7istantinople,  and  we  believe  these  ' — using  the  same  term 
of  his  acceptance  of  the  Nicene-Constantinopolitan  Creed  as 
of  his  acceptance  of  the  Tome  of  Leo  {ibid.  p.  37) ;  or  when 
again  Theodorus  says  that  the  letter  of  Leo  and  the  letters 
of  Cyril  agree  with  the  Nicene  exposition  {ibid.  p.  14) ;  or 
when  another  says,  '  We  have  learnt  and  received  that  we 
should  beheve  the  exposition  of  the  318  holy  fathers  at 
Nicaea  and  the  150  at  Constantinople  and  the  letter  of  the 
most  blessed  Archbishop  Leo  agreeing  with  the  faith  of 
the  holy  fathers  and  the  interpretation  of  Cyril '  {ibid.  p.  41), 
clearly  witnessing  to  his  own  orthodoxy  on  the  whole  faith  ; 
or  when  another  says,  '  I  so  believe,  as  the  318  fathers  have 
expounded,  and  the  150,  as  also  blessed  Cyril,  beheved,  and 
I  receive  the  Epistle  of  the  most  blessed  Pope  Leo,  agreeing 
with  these  '  {ibid.  p.  45) ;  and  further  when  they  insist  on  the 
few  bishops  that  remained  not  merely  subscribing  to  the 
Nicene  Creed  but  to  the  Tome  of  Leo,  under  pain  of  ipso 
facto  excommunication  {ibid.  p.  54)  —if,  I  say,  Dr.  Bright  had 
given  a  fuller  account  of  the  session,  it  would  have  become 
apparent  that  the  subscription  of  the  bishops  to  the  Tome 
was  obligatory,  the  touchstone  of  their  orthodoxy,  and  that 
they  were  not  settling  the  question  of  its  authority,  but  pro- 
claiming their  own  orthodoxy  by  giving  expression  to  their 
belief  that  it  was  already  matter  of  faith,  as  they  had 
assumed,  and  said  that  they  assumed,  at  the  opening  of  the 
Council  in  dealing  with  the  case  of  Dioscorus.  A  more 
representative  list  would  have  made  it  evident  that  these 
bishops  were  doing  what  they  afterwards  said  they  had  done^ 
in  the  memorable  words  of  their  letter  to  Leo  :  *  Thou  wast 
made  to  all  the  interpreter  of  the  voice  of  blessed  Peter, 
bringing  to  all  the  blessedness  of  his  faith,  whence  also  we, 


THE   EPISTLE   OF   LEO   TO   FLAVIAN  393 

using  you  as  the  originator  (a.pxvy'e>  ^^^-  if^hoatore)  of  good 
to  our  profit,  showed  forth  to  the  children  of  the  Church 
the  inheritance  of  the  truth,  not  each  singly  setting  forth  the 
teaching  [of  our  faith]  in  secret,  but  with  a  common  spirit, 
with  one  symphony  and  harmony,  declaring  the  confession 
of  faith  '  (Ep.  98).  Whether  any  positive  evidence  results 
from  all  this,  or  not,  in  favour  of  Papal  infallibility,  one 
thing  is  certain,  viz.  that  there  is  nothing  in  the  acceptance 
of  the  Tome  by  the  bishops  which  conflicts  with  a  conviction 
that  the  See  of  Peter  was  the  divinely  constituted  interpreter 
of  the  faith  of  Peter.  The  Council's  own  idea  of  its  action 
was  clearly  that  it  was  a  common  expression  of  a  common 
faith,  of  which  Leo  was,  at  any  rate  in  this  case,  the 
originator,  the  interpreter,  and,  as  they  afterwards  say,  the 
head.  The  Tome  was,  as  Vigilius  called  it,  the  lux 
prcefulgeJis,'  the  '  lamp  to  their  feet.'  And  so  the  faith  was 
rivetted  on  the  minds  of  the  faithful  by  a  double  bolt :  the 
infallible  utterance  of  the  Apostolic  See  and  the  harmonious 
declarations  of  the  bishops  in  Council.  One  of  these  would 
have  sufficed  for  the  ordinary  faithful;  the  two  together 
formed  a  bulwark  of  extraordinary  force. 


APPENDIX  III 

ON    THE    PAPAL    LEGATE'S    VERSION    OF    THE    SIXTH 
NICENE    CANON    BEAD    AT    CHALOEDON. 

It  is  certain  that  before  the  Council  of  Chalcedon  a  Codex 
of  Canons  was  in  use  among  the  Easterns  which  contained 
a  hst  distinguishing  the  canons  by  numbers  carried  on  con- 
secutively from  Council  to  Council,  not  beginning  afresh  at 
each.  We  also  know  that  in  the  fourth  session  of  Chalcedon 
(dealing  with  the  case  of  Carosus  and  Dorotheus)  the  fourth 
and  fifth  canons  of  the  Council  of  Antioch  were  quoted  by 
Aetius,  the  Archdeacon  of  Constantinople,  as  Canons  83  and 
84.^  Now  if  we  add  together  the  20  canons  of  Nicaea,  the 
25  of  Ancyra,  the  14  of  Neocsesarea,  the  20  of  Gangra,  and 
the  first  three  of  Antioch,  we  get  the  number  82,  which 
exactly  brings  us  to  the  numbers  (viz.  83  and  84)  assigned  to 
the  two  canons  of  Antioch  read  from  the  Codex  produced  by 
Aetius  on  that  occasion.  This  Codex  used  to  be  identified 
with  that  which  Dionysius  Exiguus  translated  into  Latin ; 
but  the  BaUerini  have  shown  that  this  cannot  be  maintained, 
as  also  (and  this  is  important)  that  the  oldest  Greek  Codex 
did  not  contain  the  canons  of  Laodicea,  Constantinople,  or 
Antioch.^  Aetius,  therefore,  was  not  quoting  from  the  oldest 
collection  in  existence. 

The   question   therefore   arises.  From  what  Codex  did 
Aetius,  whose  copy  contained  the  Canons  of  Antioch,  pro- 

'  Mansi,  vii.  84.       '-'  Ballerini,  De  Antiquis  Collect.  Can.  Pars  T.  c.  2. 


THE   SIXTH  NICENE   CANON  395 

duce  the  various  Canons  read  at  Chalcedon?  And  did  the 
compilation  used  by  him  later  on,  in  the  sixteenth  session  at 
Chalcedon,  exclude  the  exordium,  or  heading,  of  the  sixth 
canon  of  Nicsea  as  read  by  Paschasinus,  the  Papal  legate, 
about  the  primacy  of  the  Church  of  Eome  ?  And,  if  it  did, 
which  of  the  two  was  held  by  the  Council  to  be  the  more 
accurate  ? 

Before  answering  these  questions,  it  must  be  remembered 
that  it  may  fairly  be  questioned  whether  the  sixth  Nicene 
canon  was  read  in  any  shape  by  the  Imperial  secretary  at 
Chalcedon.  As  we  have  seen,  it  is  highly  improbable  that  it 
was,  while,  on  the  other  hand,  it  is  certain,  so  far  as  the  record 
goes,  that  no  objection  was  raised  to  the  heading  read  by 
Paschasinus,^  but  that,  on  the  contrary,  the  Imperial  Com- 
missioners appear  to  have  taken  from  it  part  of  the  conclu- 
sion adopted  by  the  bishops  then  present. ^ 

But  supposing  that  Aetius  did  give  the  Imperial  secretary 
a  Codex  to  read  containing  the  sixth  Nicene  Canon,  and  that 
this  canon  was  without  the; heading  or  exordium  in  question, 
what  is  the  comparative  value  of  Paschasinus's  version? 
Seeing  that  no  objection  can  be  raised  against  it  from  the 
history  of  the  Council,  but  that,  on  the  contrary,  a  presump- 
tion is  raised  in  its  favour,  what  evidence  is  there  in  support 
of  its  being  an  accm^ate  representation  of  the  oldest  Greek 
text  ?  ,  The  Codex  used  in  the  earlier  session  by  Aetius  did 
not,  as  we  have  seen,  contain  the  oldest  collection  of  canons, 
since  it  included  the  canons  of  Antioch.  Did,  then,  this 
Latin  version  from  which  Paschasinus  read  represent  an 
older  collection  than  that  ? 

Now  we  must  at  once  put  aside  Dr.  Bright's  gratuitous 
assumption  that  the  version  of  the  Nicene  canon  supposed 
to  have  been  produced  by  Aetius  contains  the  original 
Greek  text.  That  writer  assumes  too  much  when  he  calls 
Aetius's  version  of  that  canon  '  its  Greek  text '  (Boman  See,  p. 
203).  If  this  were  the  case,  the  question  would  be  settled. 
'  Mansi,  vii.  444.  -  Ibid.  452. 


396  APPENDIX   III 

It  is  only  '  a  Greek  text.'  Dr.  Bright  elsewhere  calls 
Aetius's  version  '  the  Greek  original '  {Cmio7is  of  the  .  .  . 
Councils,  p.  24,  1892),  'the  authentic  Greek  text'  {ibid.  p. 
226),  and  again  *  the  genuine  Greek  text '  {Waymarhs,  p.  233), 
and  in  another  place  he  calls  it  six  times  in  one  page  '  the 
Greek  text,'  in  a  way  that  implies  that  it  was  that  of  the 
original  autograph.  But,  as  Hefele  says,  '  the  original  was  not 
read.'  They  were  each  of  them  only  copies,  in  Greek  or 
Latin,  which  we  must  not  begin  by  assuming  to  be  identical 
with  the  original  autograph. 

Now  Paschasinus's  reading  of  this  Nicene  canon  is  sup- 
ported by  two  other  versions — the  Prisca  and  the  Antiquis- 
sima — which  appear  to  represent  earlier  Greek  Codices  than 
that  which  is  represented  by  the  text  produced  by 
Aetius  in  the  fourth  session  of  Chalcedon  when  two  of  the 
Antiochene  canons  were  read.  This  fact  raises  a  presump- 
tion against  the  comparative  superiority  of  Aetius's  version 
on  the  score  of  antiquity.  We  cannot,  however,  in  fairness 
assume  that,  if  the  Nicene  canon  was  actually  read  by  Aetius 
at  the  sixteenth  session  of  Chalcedon,  it  was  read  from 
the  same  Codex  as  that  used  by  him  in  the  fourth  session. 
If  we  might  make  this  assumption,  the  case  would  be  greatly 
in  favour  of  Paschasinus's  version  being  from  an  older 
Codex  than  that  used  by  Aetius.  But  a  careful  attention  to 
the  titles  and  numbers  (and  the  numeration  of  canons  is,  as 
every  student  of  the  subject  is  well  aware,  of  vast  import- 
ance) might  justify  a  protest  against  raising  this  hypothesis, 
without  further  proof ,  into  more  than  a  conjecture.  Still,  as 
a  conjecture,  it  must  be  allowed  its  weight  against  any  dog- 
matic assumption  to  the  contrary. 

We  are,  then,  quite  in  the  dark  as  to  what  the  Codex 
was  from  which  Aetius  produced  (if  he  did  produce)  his 
copy  of  the  sixth  Nicene  canon,  and  what  is  the  value  of  the 
text  of  that  canon  thus  produced.  It  agrees,  however,  with 
the  Greek  Codex  translated  in  the  Latin  version  called  the 
Isidorian,  both  in  the  words  quoted  and  in  the  numeration, 


THE   SIXTH   NICENE   CANON  397 

and  in  the  omission  of  the  exordium.      It  is  possibly  only  a 
transcript  of  the  text  in  that  same  Codex. 

But  this  Isidorian  version,  great  as  is  its  value,  is  not  a 
conclusive  authority  when  it  is  a  question  of  something 
found  in  another  Codex  and  not  in  itself.  Martin  Bracarensis 
notices  two  things  about  the  Isidorian  collection,  viz.  its 
frequent  obscurity  and  the  variations  in  which  it  indulges.^ 
On  the  other  hand,  Paschasinus's  reading  of  the  sixth  canon 
is  supported  by  the  Prisca  version,  which  is  the  translation 
of  a  very  old  Greek  Codex.  That  particular  portion  of  the 
Prisca  which  contains  the  Nicene  canons  was  translated 
toivards  the  end  of  the  fourth  century,  though  the  rest  of  the 
collection  was  not  finished  until  after  the  Council  of  Chalce- 
don.  The  Codex,  therefore,  which  it  renders,  goes,  in  its 
earlier  or  Nicene  portion,  still  further  back,  for  a  Codex 
exists  before  its  translation.  Dr.  Bright  is  therefore  certainly 
mistaken  when  he  stigmatises  Paschasinus's  reading  as  the 
'fifth-century  clause  '  [Roman  See,  p.  483). 

But  Paschasinus's  reading  is  further  supported  by  an 
important  discovery  by  the  Ballerini  brothers  in  the  shape 
of  a  very  ancient  Latin  collection  of  the  canons,  including  the 
Nicene,  anterior  to  the  Prisca  translation  mentioned  above. 
The  Greek  Codex  which  it  represents  appears  to  have  had 
an  order  of  its  own  both  in  the  numeration  and  gi'ouping  of 
the  Nicene  and  Sardican  canons.  The  rest  of  the  collection 
is  the  same  as  in  the  Prisca  version.  Thus  two  ancient 
translations  of  Greek  Codices  older  than  themselves  support 
Paschasinus's  version,  while  the  collection  which  agi-ees 
with  Aetius's  version  has  been  proved  untrustworthy  in  the 
matter  of  omissions. 

Again,  this  Isidorian  version  itself  (which  agrees  in  point 
of  omission  with  that  of  Aetius),  in  several  of  its  Codices  which 
were  received  in  the  Gallic  Churches,  exhibits  the  reading  of 

»  St.  Martin  (of  Bracara,  in  Spain  >  had  been  much  in  the  East,  and 
collated  such  Greek  texts  as  existed  in  the  sixth  century.  He  had  seen 
a  Greek  original  of  the  canons  of  the  Council  of  Ancyra. 


398  APPENDIX   III 

Paschasinus.  This  is  probably  a  recension  due  to  the  fact 
that  the  authority  of  the  Prisca  was  considered  sufficient  to 
justify  the  insertion.  Dr.  Bright  endeavours  to  discount 
from  this  by  the  fact  that  the  regions  in  which  that  reading 
was  received  were  '  dependencies  '  of  Italy.  But  a  collation 
of  the  numerous  collections  received  within  these  *  depend- 
encies '  shows  that  their  adhesion  to  Rome  in  this  matter 
was  not  so  slavish  as  Dr.  Bright  imagines.  A  good  deal  of 
independence  discovers  itself. 

When,  however,  we  speak  of  collections  of  the  canons 
being  '  received,'  we  must  be  on  our  guard  against  supposing 
that  they  were  recognised  by  public  authority.  Not  even  in 
Italy  was  any  one  collection  at  that  time  officially  sanctioned 
by  Rome.  Dr.  Bright  has  fallen  into  an  error  in  speaking 
of  the  version  of  Dionysius  Exiguus  as  having  been  *  sanc- 
tioned by  the  Roman  Church '  (Boman  See,  p.  482),  from  which 
he  argues  that  the  reading  of  Paschasinus  at  the  Council  of 
Chalcedon  was  '  officially  withdrawn  in  the  early  part  of  the 
sixth  century.'  This  is  incorrect.  Cassiodorus,  in  the 
middle  of  the  sixth  century  speaks  indeed  of  the  Dionysian 
collection  as '  hodie  usu  celeberrimo,'  *  in  most  frequent  use,' 
in  the  Roman  Church  ;  but,  as  the  Ballerini  point  out,  it  is 
of  use,  not  of  definite  public  sanction,  that  he  speaks.' 

We  have,  then,  if  we  admit  (which  is  here  only  admitted 
for  argument's  sake)  that  the  sixth  Nicene  canon  was  read 
in  Greek  by  the  secretary  at  Chalcedon,  a  Greek  text  of  the 
canon  brought  from  Constantinople,  and  a  Latin  text  brought 
(possibly  from  Sicily)  by  the  Papal  legate.  The  former,  on 
the  supposition  just  mentioned,  lacks  an  exordium,  or  head- 
ing, which  the  latter  contains — an  exordium,  however, 
which  has  no  bearing  on  the  point  at  issue  in  that  session. 
The  difference  between  the  two  versions  may  be  explained 
by  supposing  either  that  Aetius's  Greek  version  was 
defective,  or  that  Paschasinus's  reading  was  in  excess  of  the 

'  Ball.  De  Ant  Coll.  Can.  Pars  III.  c.  1,  §  2.  Cf.  also  Bouix,  Tract, 
de  Princ.  Juris  Can.  Pars  III.  5,  §  1. 


THE   SIXTH  NICENE   CANON  399 

original  Greek  text.  Both  of  these  explanations  can  claim 
some  standing  ground  in  the  midst  of  the  numerous  repre- 
sentations of  the  original  Greek  copies,  none  of  which  we 
possess.  But  they  cannot  both  be  true.  Which,  then,  is 
the  more  probable  ?  The  first  supposition  seems  to  be 
attended  with  the  fewest  difficulties.  The  omitted  clause,  or 
heading,  whichever  it  may  have  been,  viz.  *  The  Koman 
Church  always  held  the  Primacy,'  contained  a  truth  denied 
by  none,  and  impHcitly  contained  in  the  rest  of  the  canon. 
Indeed,  I  presume  that  even  Dr.  Bright  would  not  reject 
such  terms  as  containing  no  truth,  though  he  would  have  his 
own  explanation  to  give  of  the  term  '  primacy  '  (Trpwreta). 

But  our  choice  does  not  really  lie  between  these  two 
explanations.  A  third  explanation  is  that  the  sixth  canon 
was  not  read  at  all  by  the  Constantinopolitan  party,  as  being 
their  real  difficulty.^  It  was  Leo's  contention  throughout 
the  controversy  with  Anatolius  that  the  sixth  Nicene  canon 
gave  an  order  which  was  being  overturned  by  the  bishops  at 
Chalcedon  who  proceeded  on  the  ground  of  the  third  canon 
of  Constantinople. 2  And  if  we  were  to  suppose  that  the 
clause  in  question  had  been  added  without  authority,  in 
order  to  push  a  doctrine  such  as  that  of  Papal  supremacy,  it 
is  in  the  highest  degree  improbable  that  those  Eastern  bishops 
would  sit  like  *  dumb  dogs  '  and  express  no  surprise  or  indig- 
nation at  the  alteration  of  a  Nicene  canon,  if  Paschasinus's 
reading  contained  anything  contrary  to  their  teaching, 
Silence  would  be  impossible  under  such  circumstances,  and 
out  of  keeping  with  their  bearing  throughout  the  Council. 
Their  native  element  was  clamour.  Still  less  would  the 
Imperial  Commissioners  have  inserted  in  a  statement  as  to 
what  they  all  believed,  the  crucial  word  of  this  heading  or 
exordium,  and  conceded  it  to  Rome. 

In  truth,  the  mention  of  primacy  would  most  naturally 
be  welcomed  by  an  advocate  of  the  Constantinopolitan  pro- 
jects. For  the  bishop  of  the  Imperial  city  wished  to  have  a 
'  Cf.  supra,  p.  340.  2  j^g^n.  Ep.  35. 


400  APPENDIX   III 

primacy  in  the  East  on  the  ground  that  Old  Kome  had  a 
pecuHar  primacy,  as  Patriarch  in  the  West,  which  she  had 
formed  as  being  the  central  city  of  the  Empire,  over  and  above 
her  relation  to  the  universal  Church.  Paschasinus's  reading, 
therefore,  did  not  in  any  way  help  his  case.  It  was  the  rest 
of  the  canon  which  supplied  the  ground  of  Eome's  objection 
to  the  displacement  of  Alexandria  and  Antioch  in  favour  of 
Constantinople. 

And  as  regards  forgery,  for  which  we  have  now  seen 
there  was  no  sufficient  motive,  or  '  the  false  use  of  docu- 
ments,' of  which  the  Bishop  of  Lincoln,  following  Dr. 
Bright,  accuses  Paschasinus,^  it  must  in  all  fairness  be  con- 
ceded that  anything  coming  from  Constantinople  was  more 
likely  to  be  in  that  direction  than  what  came  from  Rome. 
For  while  Rome  had  been  distinguished  for  her  courageous 
maintenance  of  the  respect  due  to  Nicene  decrees,  and 
indeed  had  given  her  public  sanction  to  them  alone  and  to 
the  Sardican  as  one  with  them,  the  see  of  Constantinople 
had  richly  deserved  a  character  for  loose  dealing  with 
orthodox  documents.  The  Arians,  who  had  their  way 
plentifully  in  that  city  from  time  to  time,  were  specially 
addicted  to  the  occupation  of  forging  and  mutilating  canons. 
Other  heretics  had  also  tampered  in  Constantinople  with 
the  Acts  of  a  Council  more  recent  still,  viz.  those  of  Ephesus, 
in  the  interests  of  Pelagianism,  and  the  Greek  originals  at 
Constantinople  of  the  Council  of  Chalcedon  were  destined  to 
be  destroyed  outright  in  the  interests  of  Monothelism  and 
Erastianism.  It  would  be  well,  therefore,  to  drop  the  ex- 
planation of  forgery,  as  though  any  difference  between  Rome 
and  the  East  about  documents  necessarily  implied  forgery 
on  the  part  of  the  former  and  accuracy  on  the  part  of  the 
latter.  St.  Gregory  tells  Narses  that  it  was  exactly  the 
other  way.  He  gave  the  Easterns  credit  for  cleverness  in 
this  matter,  but  claimed  for  the  Romans  less  astuteness 
with  greater  integrity.  '  Our  Roman  books  are  much  more 
'  The  Primitive  Saints,  &c.,  by  Kev.  F.  W.  Puller,  Preface,  p.  xxi. 


THE   SIXTH   NICENE   CANON.  401 

truthful  than  the  Greek  ones,  because,  as  we  are  blessed 
with  fewer  brains  than  you,  we  are  not  such  good  hands  at 
imposture.'  Such  was  the  verdict  of  one  who  had  first-hand 
experience  in  this  matter,  having  investigated  it  in  Constanti- 
nople itself — one,  too,  of  unquestioned  integrity  and  ability 
and  who  has  earned  the  name  of  '  Great.' 

But,  indeed,  in  the  very  act  of  reading  the  canons  or 
canon  at  this  sixteenth  session  of  Chalcedon,  Aetius  was 
acting  dishonestly  in  producing  and  making  the  secretary 
Constantine  read  a  tremendous  addition  as  though  it  were 
part  of  the  canons  of  Constantinople.^  The  man  who  would 
do  this  would  omit  with  equal  readiness.  Dr.  Bright  calls 
this  procedure  '  more  astute  than  candid.'  What  eloquence 
we  should  have  had  from  him  if  a  Roman  legate  had  done 
the  same ! 

The  conclusion  is,  that  the  accusation  which  Dr.  Bright 
has  launched  (though  indeed  he  has  been  preceded  by  certain 
German  Protestants)  against  the  Roman  legate,  and  which 
has  been  recently  so  readily  caught  up  by  Anglican  writers 
of  less  learning,  has  no  premisses  to  support  it,  except  the 
eagerness  with  which  some  people  catch  at  anything  that 
seems  to  score  a  point  against  the  Church  of  Rome. 

N.B. — Dr.  Bright  altogether  misses  the  point  of  my  con- 
tention as  to  the  improbability  of  Aetius  having  had  the 
sixth  Nicene  canon  read,  when  he  asks,  '  If  it  was  ad  rem 
for  a  legate  to  quote  his  version  of  a  Nicene  canon,  why  was 
it  irrelevant  for  a  Constantinopolitan  to  read  its  [sic]  Greek 
text? '  (Roman  See,  p.  203).  It  was  ad  rem  for  the  legate  to 
read  the  sixth  canon,  because  it  placed  Alexand»:ia  and  Antioch, 
and  not  Constantinople,  next  to  Rome ;  it  was  not  ad  rem 
for  a  Constantinopolitan  to  touch  that  sixth  canon  with  the 
tip  of  his  fingers,  because  the  only  justification  of  the  Con- 
stantinopolitan contention  lay  in  the  third  canon  of  381, 
which  dictated  a  fundamental  alteration  of  the  Nicene 
settlement  as  to  the  relative  position  of  the  sees. 
*  Mayisi,  vii.  445. 

DD 


INDEX 


Aetius,  Archdeacon,  339,  394  ff 

Alexandria,  its  position,  5 

Anatolius,  Archbishop  of  Constan- 
tinople, 204  ff ;  discussion  of 
the  Tame,  268,  274 

Antioch.  See  John,  Domnus, 
Maximus 


Baksumas,  monk,  152 
Bishops.     See  Council 
Bossuet,  20,  52,  55,  98,  382 


Candidian,  Count,  60,  63,  92 

Canons,  violated  by  Nestorius,  51 ; 
third  of  Constantinople  (a.d.  381), 
323  a,  330,  340;  null  from 
beginning,  332,  342 ;  twenty- 
eighth  of  Chalcedon,  338,  343, 
345,  360.  See  mcene,  and  Pre- 
face, xii 

Capreolus,  Bishop  of  Carthage, 
49 

Celestine  I.,  St.,  Pope,  character,  6, 
ex  cathedrd  definition,  7,  19 ; 
sentence  on  Nestorius,  12 ;  presi- 
dent of  Council,  35  ;  letter  read, 
48 ;  obedience  to,  50  ;  instruc- 
tions to  legates  {Commonitor- 
ium,  66  ;  last  letter,  115 

Chrysaphius,  Imperial  Chamber- 
lain, 125,  135 

Chrysologus,  St.,  132,  384 
hrysostom,  St.,  action  at  Ephesus, 
325 


Constantinople,  people  of,  Leo's 
children,  187  ;  desire  for  a  Patri- 
archate, 321  £f ;  position  at  Chal- 
cedon, 336 

—  Council  of,  in  381,  detested  by 
Dioscorus,  125  ;  slighted  at  the 
Latrocinium,  151,  156,  160; 
when  inserted  in  list  of  (Ecum. 
Councils,  341.     See  Synod 

—  Council  of,  A.D.  448,  158 

—  Creed  of,  232,  261,  266,  287 
Council,  function  of  (Ecumenical, 

39,  301 ;  Leo's  idea  of,  145,  383, 
389  ;  the  Emperor's  idea  of,  288 ; 
Bottalla  on,  389,  391 
Cyprus,  quarrel  with  Antioch,  110 
Cyril,  St.,  of  Alexandria,  on  the 
Incarnation,  4  ;  his  position  in 
A.D.  430,  5  ;  asks  Celestine  to 
define,  10 ;  his  Synod,  29  ;  pre- 
sident at  Ephesus,  34 ;  on  the 
Apostolic  See,  84 ;  Eutyches's 
use  of  his  name,  222.  See  Union 


Dalmatius,  monk,  93 
Diocese,  meaning  of,  34,  323 
Dioscorus,    Archbishop    of     Alex- 
andria, 124,  135,  151 ;  object  in 
the    Latrocinium,    154  ;    treat- 
ment of  Flavian,  164  ;  made  to 
sit  in  the  middle,  224,  252  ;  his 
trial,    229  ff ;    his   heresy,  238  ; 
sentence  on,  244 
Domnus,  Bishop  of  Antioch,  124 
126,  165,  313 


404 


INDEX 


Egypt,  effect  of  Eutychianism,  252 

—  Bishops  of,  225,  226  note,  278, 
298,  301 

Ephesus,  people  of,  against  Nes- 
torius,  30  ;  Bishop  of,  at 
Florence,  105  ;  ordination  of  its 
bishops,  329 

—  Council  of,  question  at  issue,  3 
a     device     of     Nestorius,     24 
absence  of  John  of  Antioch,  31 
condemnation    of    Pelagianism, 
49  ;  no  definition  issued,  264 

Episcopate,  its  function  in  a 
Council,  39 ;  relation  to  the 
Pope,  48,  240.     See  Preface 

Eulogius,  St.,  on  Council  of  Ephe- 
sus, 109 

Euphemia,  St.,  223,  292 

Eusebius,  of  Dorylseura,  accuses 
Eutyches,  128  ;  not  admitted  to 
the  Latrocinium,  156,  158 ; 
appeals  to  Kome,  164,  165 ;  his 
letter  of  appeal,  176,  232;  his 
position  at  Chalcedon,  308 

Eutyches,  character,  123  ;  accused, 
128 ;  appeals,  130  :  defence  at 
Latrocinium,  154  ff;  claims 
agreement  with  Cyril,  222  ;  his 
confession  of  faith,  232 

FiRMUs,  Bishop  of  Csesarea  in 
Gappadocia,  69 

Flavian,  Archbishop  of  Constanti- 
nople, 125,  128,  133;  corre- 
spondence with  Leo,  136 ;  re- 
porting to  Leo,  149  ;  accused  by 
Eutyches,  155,  159  ;  appeals  to 
Eome,  164  ;  his  letter  of  appeal, 
173  ff ;  his  ecthesis,  235 


Galla  Placidia,  Empress,  188, 193 


John,  Bishop  of  Antioch ;  letter 
from  Cyril,  17  ;  urges  Nestorius 
to  obey,  20 ;  his  delay  near 
Ephesus,  31 ;  schismatic  action, 
60  ff ;  summoned  to  the  Council, 
96  ;  excommunicated,  98 

Juvenal,  Bishop  of  Jerusalem.  44, 
46,  48,  96,  152,  236,  2.39,  337 


Latrocinium  (or  Bobber- Synod), 
literature  on,  150 ;  irregular 
features,  152  ;  Dioscorus's  object 
thereat,  154;  Council  of  381 
slighted,  151 ;  ill-treatment  of 
Flavian,  164 

Legates,  Papal,  sent  to  Ephesus, 
65  ff ;  deference  to,  79  ;  Philip's 
speech,  81,  85, 338  ;  Dr.  Bright's 
accusation,  347,  371.  See  Pas- 
cUasinus,  Philip 

Leo,  Eutyches's  appeal  to,  130 ; 
correspondence  with  Flavian, 
134;  asked  to  settle  matters 
without  a  Council,  137  ;  zeal  for 
the  faith,  140  ;  his  Tome,  142  ff ; 
claim  to  absolve  Eutyches,  146 ; 
relation  to  St.  Peter,  122,  147  ; 
Petrine  prerogatives  relied  on, 
167  ff,  186,  190,  194,  195,  209, 
211 ;  invalidates  the  Latro- 
cinium, 182 ;  deprecates  a 
Council,  202 ;  decides  Theo- 
doret's  ease,  218 ;  directions 
about  Eastern  bishops,  221 ;  his 
Tome  read,  266  ff :  the  Tome  to 
be  followed,  286  ;  its  promulga- 
tion defended  by  the  Council,  287 ; 
his  judgment  on  Theodoret  not 
reviewed,  299 ;  dispenses  in 
Maximus's  case,  313,  315  ;  care 
for  the  canons,  352  ;  head  of  the 
Church,  368,  369 


Haknack,  259,  283 
Hilavus,  legate,  181 
Hypostatic.     See  Union 

Iben^us,  Count,  60,  126 


Mansi,  Archbishop,  on  the  Council 
of  Ephesus,  88  ;  on  the  suffici- 
ency   of    the    Tome,    295 ;    on 
Maximus  of   Antioch,  317  ;   on 
i        the   bishops'  declarations  as  to 


INDEX 


405 


the  Tome,  386  ;  on  the  Council 
of  Chalcedon's  attitude  towards 
the  T&me,  387 

Marcian,  Emperor,  199,  288,  346, 
362 

Maximus,  Bishop  of  Antioch,  165  ; 
compact  with  Juvenal,  312  ;  dis- 
pensed by  Leo,  315,  317 

Memnon,  Bishop  of  Ephesus,  30, 
61,63 


Nestokius,  his  pride,  6 ;  con- 
demned by  Pope  Celestine,  8  ; 
his  idea  of  a  Council,  24  ;  his 
reception  at  Ephesus,  30  ;  con- 
demned by  the  Council,  50 ; 
banished  to  Antioch,  thence  to 
the  Thebaid,  114,  115 

Nicene,  Canons,  Sardican  called 
thus,  185 

—  Sixth  Canon,  version  read  at 
Chalcedon,  340,  394 

—  Creed,  its  enlargement  in  a.d. 
381,  105  ;  signing  Nicene  Creed 
not  sufficient,  106  ;  additions  to, 
slighted  by  Dioscorus,  154 ; 
and  by  Eutyches,  156 ;  Leo's 
guardianship,  184  (and  see 
Preface) ;  confirmed  at  Chalce- 
don, 222 


(Ecumenical,  applied  to  Leo,  242. 
See  Council 


Paschasinus,  legate,  223,  225,  243, 
275,  395.     See  Legate 

Patriarch,  meaning  of,  239  ;  posi- 
tion of,  321  ;  Western  Patri- 
archate, 351 


Pelagians,  25  ;  condemnation  re- 
newed, 49 

Philip,  legate,  67,  71,  81  (speech 
on  See  of  Peter) 

Placidia.    See  Galla 

Pulcheria,  St.,  Empress,  133,  146, 
186,  199  (character),  201,  208 


Robber- Synod.     See  Latrocinium 


Sabdican,  Canons.     See  Nicene 

Socrates  (historian),  86 

Synod,  '  Piesident '  or  '  Home,'  at 

Constantinople,  155,  323.  334 
—  Roman,  171  If,  174,  178 


Thalassius,  Bishop  of  Caesarea  in 
Cappadocia,  153,  322,  337 

Theodoret,  Bishop  of  Cyrus  (or 
Cyrrhos),  179,  212  ff  (letter  to 
Leo),  215  (letter  to  Renatus) ;  at 
Chalcedon,  225,  228,  232,  298  £f 
(restoration) 

Theodosius  II.,  influenced  by  Nes- 
torius,  27 ;  dislike  of  Cyril,  29  ; 
misled  by  Candidian,  92  ;  visited 
by  Dalmatius,  monk,  93  ;  inter- 
cedes for  Eutyches,  134  ;  refuses 
second  Council,  182,  187,  195 

Theotokos  {QeorSKos),  meaning,  4  ; 
repudiated  by  Nestorius,  9 ;  not 
inserted  in  Creed,  108,  109,  283 


Union,  Hypostatic,  the  question  at 
Ephesus  in  a.d.  431,  3,  4,  5  ; 
Pope  Celestine's  definition,  7, 
107 

Universal,  Bishon,  116,  319 


PRINTED    BY 

SPOTTISWOODE    AND    CO.,    NE-VV-STREET    SQUAKE 

LONDON 


April  1899. 

A  Selection  of  Works 

IN 

THEOLOGICAL    LITERATURE 

PUBLISHED    BY 

Messrs.  LONGMANS,  GREEN,  &  CO. 

London  :  39  Paternoster  Row,  E.C. 

New  York  :  91  and  93  Fifth  Avenue. 

Bombay  :  32  Hornby  Road. 

Abbey  and  Overton.— THE  ENGLISH  CHURCH  IN  THE 

EIGHTEENTH  CENTURY.  By  Charles  J.  Abbey,  M.A.  ,  Rector 
of  Checkendon,  Reading,  and  John  H.  Overton,  D.D.  ,  Canon  of 
Lincoln.     Crown  Zvo.     js.  6d. 

Adams.— SACRED  ALLEGORIES.     The  Shadow  of  the  Cross 

—The  Distant  Hills— The  Old  Man's  Home— The  King's  Messengers. 
By  the  Rev.  William  Adams,  M.A.     Crown  Svo.     35.  6d. 

The   four    Allegories   may  be  had   separately,   with    Illustrations. 
i6mo.     ij.  each. 

Aids  to  the  Inner  Life. 

Edited  by  the  Venble.  W.  H.  Hutchings,  M.A.,  Archdeacon  of  Cleve- 
land, Canon  of  York,  Rector  of  Kirby  Misperton,  and  Rural  Dean  of 
Malton.  Five  Vols,  ^'zmo,  cloth  limp,  6d.  each;  or  cloth  extra, 
15.  each. 

OF  THE  IMITATION  OF  CHRIST.     By  THOMAS  X  Kempis. 

THE  CHRISTIAN  YEAR 

THE  DEVOUT  LIFE.     By  St.  Francis  de  Sales. 

THE  HIDDEN  LIFE  OF  THE  SOUL. 

THE  SPIRITUAL  COMBAT.     By  Laurence  Scupoli. 
Alexander.— THE  CHRISTIANITY  OF  ST.  PAUL.    By  the 

Rev.  S.  A.  Alexander,  M.A.,  Reader  of  the  Temple  Church. 
Bamett.— THE   SERVICE  OF  GOD  :   Sermons,  Essays,  and 
Addresses.     By  Samuel  A.   Barnett,  Warden   of  Toynbee   Hall, 
Whitechapel;    Canon  of  Bristol  Cathedral;   Select   Preacher  before 
Oxford  University.     Crown  8vo.     6s. 

Bathe.— Works  by  the  Rev.  Anthony  Bathe,  M.A. 

A  LENT  WITH  JESUS.  A  Plain  Guide  for  Churchmen.  Containing 
Readings  for  Lent  and  Easter  Week,  and  on  the  Holy  Eucharist. 
S2fno,  IS.;  or  in  paper  cover,  6d. 

AN  ADVENT  WITH  JESUS,     s^mo,  xs.;  or  in  paper  cover,  6d. 

WHAT  I  SHOULD  BELIEVE.  A  Simple  Manual  of  Self-Instruction 
for  Church  People.     Small  Svo,  limp,  is. ;  cloth  gilt,  -zs. 

Bathe  and  Buckham.— THE  CHRISTIAN'S  ROAD  BOOK. 

2  Parts.     By  the  Rev.  Anthony  Bathe  and  Rev.  F.  H.  Buckham. 
Part  I.  Devotions.     Sewed,  td.  ;  limp  cloth,  is.  ;  cloth  extra,  \s.  td. 
Part  II.  Readings.     Sewed,   xs.  ;   limp  cloth,   2s.  ;  cloth  extra,  35.  ; 
or  complete  in  one  volume,  sewed,  xs.  6d.  ;  limp  cloth,  2S.  6d.  ;  cloth 
extra,  y.  6d. 


A  SELECTION  OF  WORKS 


Benson.— Works  by  the  Rev.  R.  M.  Benson,  M.A.,  Student  of 
Christ  Church,  Oxford. 
THE  FINAL  PASSOVER  :  A  Series  of  Meditations  upon  the  Passion  of 
our  Lord  Jesus  Christ.     Small  Svo. 

Vol.  IIL— The  Divine  Exodus. 


Vol.  L— The  Rejection.    5^, 
Vol.  IL— The  Upper  Chamber. 

Part  I.    5^. 

Part  II.     5J-. 


Parts  I.  and  II.  s,s.  each. 
Vol.  IV.— The  Life  Beyond  the 
Grave,    sj. 


THE  MAGNIFICAT ;  a  Series  of  Meditations  upon  the  Song  of  the 
Blessed  Virgin  Mary.     Small  Svo.    2s. 

SPIRITUAL   READINGS    FOR   EVERY   DAY.     3  vols.     Small  Svo. 

35.  6d.  each. 
I.  Advent.  II.  Christmas.  III.  Epiphany. 

BENEDICTUS  DOMINUS  :  A  Course  of  Meditations  for  Every  Day  of 

the  Year.   Vol.  I.— Advent  to  Trinity.   Vol.  II.— Trinity,  Saints' 

Days,  etc     Small  Svo.  35'.  dd.  each  ;  or  in  One  Volume,  7s. 
BIBLE  TEACHINGS  :  The  Discourse  at  Capernaum.— St.  Johnvi.   Small 

Svo.    y.  6d. 
THE  WISDOM  OF  THE  SON  OF  DAVID  :  An  Exposition  of  the  First 

Nine  Chapters  of  the  Book  of  Proverbs.    Small  Svo.    35-.  6^. 
THE  MANUAL  OF  INTERCESSORY  PRAYER.    Royal  s^mo. ;  cloth 

boards,  is.  ^d.  ;  cloth  limp,  gd. 
THE  EVANGELIST  LIBRARY  CATECHISM.    Part  I.   Small  Svo.    3s. 
PAROCHIAL  MISSIONS.     Small  Svo.    2s.  6d. 

Bickersteth.— YESTERDAY,  TO-DAY,  AND  FOR  EVER: 
a  Poem  in  Twelve  Books.  By  Edward  Henry  Bickersteth,  D.D., 
Lord  Bishop  of  Exeter.  One  Shilling'  Edition,  iSmo.  With  red  borders, 
i6mo,  25.  6d. 

The  Crown  Zvo  Edition  (sj.)  may  still  he  had. 

Blunt.— Works  by  the  Rev.  JOHN  HENRY  Blunt,  D.D. 

THE  ANNOTATED  BOOK  OF  COMMON  PRAYER:  Being  an 
Historical,  Ritual,  and  Theological  Commentary  on  the  Devotional 
System  of  the  Church  of  England.     /\to.     21s. 

THE  COMPENDIOUS  EDITION  OF  THE  ANNOTATED  BOOK 
OF  COMMON  PRAYER  :  Forming  a  concise  Commentary  on  the 
Devotional  System  of  the  Church  of  England.     Crown  Svo.     xos.  6d. 

DICTIONARY  OF  DOCTRINAL  AND  HISTORICAL  THEOLOGY. 
By  various  Writers.     Imperial  Svo.     21s. 

DICTIONARY  OF  SECTS,  HERESIES,  ECCLESIASTICAL  PAR- 
TIES AND  SCHOOLS  OF  RELIGIOUS  THOUGHT.  By  various 
Writers.     Imperial  Svo.     2xs. 

THE  REFORMATION  OF  THE  CHURCH  OF  ENGLAND:  its 
History,  Principles,  and  Results.     1574-1662.     Two  Vols.     Svo.     34J. 


IN  THEOLOGICAL  LITERATURE. 


Blunt. — Works  by  the  Rev.  John  Henry  Blunt,  D.D.—conifd. 

THE  BOOK  OF  CHURCH  LAW.  Being  an  Exposition  of  the  Legal 
Rights  and  Duties  of  the  Parochial  Clergy  and  the  Laity  of  the  Church 
of  England.  Revised  by  the  Right  Hon.  Sir  Walter  G.  F.  Philli- 
MORE,  Bart.,  D.C.L.,  and  G.  Edwardes  Jones,  Barrister-at-Law. 
Crown  8vo.     gs. 

A  COMPANION  TO  THE  BIBLE  :  Being  a  Plain  Commentary  on 
Scripture  History,  to  the  end  of  the  Apostolic  Age.  Two  Vols,  small 
8vo.    Sold  separately.     Old  Test,    3^.  6d.     New  Test.     35.  (id. 

HOUSEHOLD  THEOLOGY:  a  Handbook  of  Religious  Information 
respecting  the  Holy  Bible,  the  Prayer  Book,  the  Church,  etc.,  etc. 
Paper  cover,  \6mo.     is.     Also  the  Larger  Edition,  35.  6d. 

Body. — Works  by  the  Rev.GEORGE  BODY,D.D., Canon  of  Durham. 
THE  LIFE  OF  LOVE.    A  Course  of  Lent  Lectures.     -lSjuo.     2s.  6d. 
THE  SCHOOL  OF  CALVARY  ;   or,   Laws   of  Christian   Life  revealed 

from  the  Cross.    i.6mo.     -zs.  6d. 
THE  LIFE  OF  JUSTIFICATION.     i6mo.     zs.  6d. 
THE  LIFE  OF  TEMPTATION.     x6mo.    2s.  6d. 
THE  PRESENT  STATE  OF  THE  FAITHFUL  DEPARTED.    Small 

Svo.  sewed,  6d.     -^zmo.  cloth,  ts. 

Boultbee.— A    COMMENTARY    ON    THE   THIRTY-NINE 

ARTICLES  OF  THE  CHURCH  OF  ENGLAND,  By  the  Rev. 
T.  P.  Boultbee,  formerly  Principal  of  the  London  College  of  Divinity, 
St.  John's  Hall,  Highbury.    Crown  Svo.     6s. 

Bright.— Works  by  William  Bright,  D.D.,  Regius  Professor 

of  Ecclesiastical   History   in    the    University  of  Oxford, 

and  Canon  of  Christ  Church,  Oxford, 

SOME  ASPECTS  OF  PRIMITIVE  CHURCH  LIFE.     Crown  Svo.    6s. 

THE  ROMAN  SEE  IN  THE  EARLY  CHURCH  :  And  other  Studies 

in  Church  History.     Crown  Svo.     js.  6d. 
WAYMARKS  IN  CHURCH  HISTORY.     Crown  Svo.    -js.  6d. 
LESSONS  FROM  THE   LIVES   OF   THREE  GREAT  FATHERS. 

St.  Athanasius,  St.  Chrvsostom,  and  St.  Augustine.     Crown  Svo.    6s. 
THE  INCARNATION  AS  A  MOTIVE  POWER.     Crown  Svo.    6s. 

Bright  and  Medd.— LIBER  PRECUM  PUBLICARUM  EC- 
CLESI^  ANGLICANS.  A  Gulielmo  Bright,  S.T.P.,  et  Petro 
Goldsmith  Medd,  A.M.,  Latine  redditus.     Small  Svo.     js.  6d. 

Browne.— WEARIED  WITH  THE   BURDEN  :    A  Book  of 

Daily  Readings  for  Lent.  By  Arthur  Heber  Browne,  M.A., 
LL.D,,  late  Rector  of  St.  John's,  Newfoundland.     Crown  Svo.     45-.  6<f. 

Browne.— AN    EXPOSITION     OF    THE    THIRTY-NINE 

ARTICLES,  Historical  and  Doctrinal.  By  E.  H.  BROWNE,  D.D., 
sometime  Bishop  of  Winchester.    Svo.    i6s. 

Campion  and  Beamont.— THE  PRAYER  BOOK  INTER- 
LEAVED. With  Historical  Illustrations  and  Explanatory  Notes 
arranged  parallel  to  the  Text.  By  W.  M.  CAMPION,  D.D.,  and  W.  J. 
Beamont,  M.A,     Small  Svo.    js.  6d. 


A  SELECTION  OF  WORKS 


Carter.— Works  by,  and  edited  by  the  Rev.  T.  T.  Carter,  M.A., 
Hon.  Canon  of  Christ  Church,  Oxford. 

THE  SPIRIT  OF  WATCHFULNESS  AND    OTHER  SERMONS. 

Crown  ^vo,     55, 
THE  TREASURY  OF  DEVOTION  :  a  Manual  of  Prayer  for  General 

and  Daily  Use.     Compiled  by  a  Priest. 

i^mo.     2s.  6d.  ;  cloth  limp,  2s.     Bound  with  the  Book  of  Common 
Prayer,  3^.  6d.      Red-Line  Edition,     Cloth  extra,  gilt  top.     iSmo, 
2s.  6d.  net.     Large-Type  Edition.     Crown  Svo.     35,  6d. 
THE  WAY  OF  LIFE :  A  Book  of  Prayers  and  Instruction  for  the  Young 

at  School,  with  a  Preparation  for  Confirmation.     Compiled  by  a  Priest, 

i8mo.     IS.  6d. 
THE  PATH  OF  HOLINESS:  a  First  Book  of  Prayers,  with  the  Service 

of  the  Holy  Communion,  for  the  Young.     Compiled  by  a  Priest.     With 

Illustrations.     i6mo.     js.  6d.  ;  cloth  litnp,  \s. 
THE  GUIDE  TO  HEAVEN  :  a  Book  of  Prayers  for  every  Want.    (For 

the  Working  Classes.)     Compiled  by  a  Priest.     iSw^.     u.  ^d.  ;  cloth 

limp,  xs.    Large-  Type  Edition.     Crown  Svo.    is.  6d.  ;  cloth  limp,  is. 

THE  STAR  OF  CHILDHOOD  :  a  First  Book  of  Prayers  and  Instruction 
for  Children.    Compiled  by  a  Priest.    With  Illustrations.    i6m<f.  2s.  6d. 

SIMPLE  LESSONS  ;  or,  Words  Easy  to  be  Understood.     A  Manual  of 

Teaching,     i.  On  the  Creed,    11.  The  Ten  Commandments,    in.  The 

Sacrament.     i8mo.    y. 
A  BOOK  OF  PRIVATE  PRAYER  FOR  MORNING,  MID-DAY,  AND 

OTHER  TIMES,     i8mo.  limp  cloth,  is.  ;  cloth,  red  edges,  is.  3d. 
NICHOLAS  FERRAR  :  his  Household  and  his  Friends.    With  Portrait 

engraved    after  a   Picture    by  CORNELIUS  Janssen    at    Magdalene 

College,  Cambridge.     Crown  Svo.     6s. 

MANUAL  OF  DEVOTION  FOR  SISTERS  OF  MERCY.     8  parts  in 

2  vols,      32mo.      los.      Or  separately : — Part  i.    is.  6d.    Part  ii.    is. 

Part  III.  IS.     Part  iv.  2s.     Part  v.  is.     Part  vi,   is.     Part  vii.     Part 

viii,  IS.  6d. 
HARRIET  MONSELL  :  A  Memoir  of  the  First  Mother  Superior  of  the 

Clewer  Community.     With  Portrait.     Crow7t  Svo.     2s.  6d. 
PARISH  TEACHINGS,     First  and  Second  Series,    CrownSvo.    4s.  6d. 

each  sold  separately. 
SPIRITUAL  INSTRUCTIONS.     Crown  Svo. 


Our  Lord's  Early  Life,   3s.  dd. 
Our  Lord's  Entrance  on  his 
Ministry.    3^.  6d. 


The  Holy  Eucharist,     3^,  6d. 
The  Divine  Dispensations.   35,  6d. 
The  Life  of  Grace.    35.  e>d. 

The  Religious  Life,     3^,  6d. 

THE   DOCTRINE  OF  THE  PRIESTHOOD   IN   THE  CHURCH 

OF  ENGLAND,     Crown  Svo.     4J, 
THE    DOCTRINE    OF    CONFESSION    IN    THE    CHURCH    OF 

ENGLAND.     Crown  Svo.     55. 
THE  DOCTRINE  OF  THE  HOLY  EUCHARIST,  drawn  from  the  Holy 

Scriptures  and  the  Records  of  the  Church  of  England.    Fcp.  Svo.     gd. 
VOWS  AND  THE  RELIGIOUS  STATE.     Crown  Svo.     zs. 


IN  THEOLOGICAL  LITERATURE. 


Coles.— LENTEN  MEDITATIONS.  By  the  Rev.  V.  S.  S.  Coles, 

M.A.,  Principal  of  the  Pusey  House,  Oxford,      \^mo.      2s.  6d. 

Congreve.— CHRISTIAN  LIFE  A  RESPONSE.  With  other 
Retreat  Addresses  and  Sermons.  By  George  Congreve,  Mission 
Priest  of  the  Society  of  St.  John  the  Evangehst,  Cowley  St.  John,  Oxford. 
Crown  8t'0.     ^s. 

Conybeare  and  Howson.— THE  LIFE  AND  EPISTLES  OF 

ST.  PAUL.     By  the  Rev.  W.  J.  Conybeare,  M.A.,  and  the  Very 
Rev.  J.  S.  Howson,  D.D.     With  numerous  Maps  and  Illustrations. 
Library  Edition.    Two  Vols.  Zvo.  21s.    Students'  Edition.    One  Vol. 
Crown  8vo.     6s.     Popular  Edition.     One  Vol.     Crown  8vo.    3J.  6d. 

Creighton.— A  HISTORY  OF  THE   PAPACY  FROM   THE 

GREAT  SCHISM  TO  THE  SACK  OF  ROME  (1378-1527).  By 
Right  Hon.  and  Right  Rev.  Mandell  Creighton,  D.  D.,  Lord  Bishop 
of  London.     Six  volumes.     Crown  8vo.     6s.  each. 

DAY-HOURS  OF  THE  CHURCH  OF  ENGLAND,  THE. 

Newly  Revised   according  to  the   Prayer  Book  and   the  Authorised 
Translation  of  the  Bible.     Crowfi  8vo.  sewed,  2^-  ;  cloth,  ^s.  6d. 
SUPPLEMENT  TO  THE   DAY-HOURS  OF  THE  CHURCH  OF 
ENGLAND,  being  the  Service  for  certain  Holy  Days.     Crown  8vo, 
sewed,  35.  ;  cloth,  3^.  6d. 

Devotional  Series,  16mo,  Red  Borders.    Each  is.  6d. 
Bickersteth's  Yesterday,   To-  ;      Lear's  (H.  L.  Sidney)  For  Days 

Day,  and  For  Ever.  '         and  Years. 

Chilcot's    Treatise    on    Evil  j      Francis  de    Sales'    (St.)    The 

Thoughts.  !         Devout  Life. 

The  Christian  Year,  Wilson's  The  Lord's    Supper. 

Herbert's  Poems  and  Proverbs.  ;         Large  type. 
Kempis'  (a)  Of  the  Imitation  |    *Taylor's  (Jeremy)  Holy  Living. 

OF  Christ.  I    * Holy  Dying. 

*  These  two  in  one  Volume.    55. 

Devotional  Series,  18mo,  without  Red  Borders.    Each  is. 


Bickersteth's  Yesterday,  To- 
day, and  For  Ever. 

The  Christian  Year. 

Kempis'  (a)  Of  the  Imitation 
of  Christ. 

Herbert's  Poems  and  Proverbs. 


Wilson's   The  Lord's  Supper. 

Large  type. 
Francis    de    Sales'  (St.)    The 

Devout  Life. 
*Taylor's  (Jeremy)  Holy  Living. 
* Holy  Dying. 


*  These  two  in  one  Volume,     is.  6d. 

Edersheim.— Works  by  Alfred  Edersheim,  M.A.,  D.D.,  Ph.D. 

THE  LIFE  AND  TIMES  OF  JESUS  THE  MESSIAH.  Two  Vols. 
8vo.     24s. 

JESUS  THE  MESSIAH  :  being  an  Abridged  Edition  of  'The  Life  and 
Times  of  Jesus  the  Messiah.'     Crown  8vo.     7s.  6d. 

HISTORY  OF  THE  JEWISH  NATION  AFTER  THE  DESTRUC- 
TION OF  JERUSALEM  UNDER  TITUS.     8vo.     x8s. 


A  SELECTION  OF  WORKS 


EUicott. — Works  by  C.  J.  Ellicott,  D.D.,  Bishop  of  Gloucester. 

A  CRITICAL  AND    GRAMMATICAL    C0MMP:NTARY    ON    ST. 

PAUL'S  EPISTLES.     Greek  Text,  with  a  Critical  and  Grammatical 

Commentary,  and  a  Revised  English  Translation,     ^vo. 

Galatians.     8j.  dd.  Philippians,  Colossians,  and 

Ephesians.    8j.  6d.  Philemon.    \os.  td. 

Thessalonians.    ^s.  6d. 
Pastoral  Epistles,    los.  6d. 
HISTORICAL    LECTURES    ON    THE    LIFE    OF    OUR    LORD 
JESUS  CHRIST.     Bvo.     X2s. 

ENGLISH  (THE)  CATHOLIC'S  VADE  MECUM  :  a  Short 
Manual  of  General  Devotion.  Compiled  by  a  Priest.  2'^mo.  /imp, 
IS.  ;  cloth,  2s. 

Priest's  Edition.     32^0.     i^.  6d. 
Epochs  of  Church  History.— Edited  by  Right  Hon.  and  Right 
Rev.    Mandell    Creighton,    D.D.,    Lord     Bishop     of 
London.     Small  Zvo.     is.  6d.  each. 

THE  ENGLISH  CHURCH  IN 

OTHER  LANDS.    By  the  Rev.  H.  W. 

Tucker,  M.A. 
THE   HISTORY   OF  THE    REFOR- 
MATION  IN   ENGLAND.     By  the 

Rev.  Geo.  G.  Perry,  M.A. 
THE    CHURCH    OF    THE    EARLY 

FATHERS.      By    the    Rev.   Alfred 

Plummkr,  D.D. 
THE  EVANGELICAL  REVIVAL  IN 

THE   EIGHTEENTH   CENTURY. 

By  the  Rev.  J.  H.  Overton,  D.D. 
THE   UNIVERSITY   OF    OXFORD. 

By  the  Hon.  G.  C.  Brodrick,  D.C.L. 
THE      UNIVERSITY      OF       CAM- 
BRIDGE.    By  J.    Bass  Mullinger, 

M.A. 
THE  ENGLISH  CHURCH  IN  THE 

MIDDLE   AGES.     By  the  Rev.   W. 

Hunt,  M.A. 


THE  CHURCH  AND  THE 
EASTERN  EMPIRE.  By  the  Rev. 
H.  F.  Tozer,  M.A. 

THE  CHURCH  AND  THE  ROMAN 
EMPIRE.    By  the  Rev.  A.  Carr,  M.A. 

THE  CHURCH  AND  THE  PURI- 
TANS, 1570-1660.  By  Henry  Offlet 
Wakeman   M.A. 

HILDEBRAND  and  HIS  TIMES. 
By  the  Rev.  W.  R.  W.  Stephens,  M.A. 

THE  POPES  AND  THE  HOHEN- 
STAUFEN.     By  Ugo  Balzani. 

THE  COUNTER  REFORMATION. 
By  Adolphus  William  Ward,  Litt.  D. 

WYCLIFFE  AND  MOVEMENTS 
FOR  REFORM.  By  Reginald  L. 
Poole,  M.A. 

THE  ARIAN  CONTROVERSY.  By 
the  Rev.  H.  M.  Gwatkin,  M.A. 


EUCHARISTIC  MANUAL  (THE).  Consisting  of  Instructions 
and  Devotions  for  the  Holy  Sacrament  of  the  Altar.  From  various 
sources.  32^0.  cloth  gilt,  red  edges.   \s.  Cheap  Edition,  limp  cloth.   <)d. 

Farrar.— Works  by  Frederick  W.  Farrar,  D.D.,  Dean  of 
Canterbury. 
THE  BIBLE  :  Its  Meaning  and  Supremacy.     %vo.     155. 
TEXTS  EXPLAINED  ;  or.  Helps  to  Understand  the  New  Testament, 
Crow7i  8vo.  Un  the  press. 

ALLEGORIES.      With  25  Ill-ustrations  by  Amelia  Bauerle.      Crown 
Zvo.     6s. 
Contents.— The  Life  Story  of  Aner— The  Choice— The  Fortunes  of  a 
Royal  House— The  Basilisk  and  the  Leopard. 


IN  THEOLOGICAL  LITERATURE. 


Fosbery.— Works  edited  by  the  Rev.  Thomas  Vincent  Fosbery, 
M.A.,  sometime  Vicar  of  St.  Giles's,  Reading. 
VOICES  OF  COMFORT.     Cheap  Edition.    Small  ^vo.     2>s.  ^d. 

The  Larger  Edition  (ys.  6d.)  tnay  still  be  had. 
HYMNS  AND  POEMS   FOR  THE  SICK  AND   SUFFERING.     In 
connection  with  the  Service  for  the  Visitation  of  the  Sick.     Selected 
from  Various  Authors.     Small  8vo.     35.  6d. 

Geikie. — Works  by  J.  Cunningham  Geikie,  D.D.,  LL.D.,  late 
Vicar  of  St.  Martin-at-Palace,  Norwich. 
HOURS  WITH  THE  BIBLE  :  the  Scriptures  in  the  Light  of  Modern 
Discovery  and  Knowledge.     New  Edition,  largely  rewritten.      Com- 
plete in  Twelve  Volumes.     Crown  8vo.     3,^.  6d.  each. 

OLD  TESTAMENT. 

In  Six  Volumes.     Sold  separately.     3^,  ^d.  each. 

Creation   to    the    Patriarchs,   '  Rehoboam  to   Hezekiah.     With 


With  a  Map  and  Illustrations. 


MosES  TO  Judges.     With  a  Map 
and  Illustrations. 


Illustrations. 
Manasseh    to    Zedekiah,     With 
the  Contemporary  Prophets.    With 
a  Map  and  Illustrations, 
;  Exile   to    Malachi.      With    the 
Samson    to    Solomon.       With   a         Contemporary    Prophets.       With 
Map  and  Illustrations.  I       Illustrations. 

NEW  TESTAMENT. 
In  Six  Volumes.     Sold  separately,     y.  6d.  each. 
The  Gospels.       With  a  Map  and 


Illustrations. 

Life    and    Words    of    Christ. 
With  Map.     2  vols. 


Life  and  Epistles  of  St.  Paul. 

With    Maps     and    Illustrations. 

2  vols. 
St.  Peter  to  Revelation.     With 

29  Illustrations. 


LIFE  AND  WORDS  OF  CHRIST 

Caiinet  Edition.      With  Map.    2  vols.     Post  8vo.     ys. 

Cheap  Edition,  without  the  Notes,     i  vol.     8vo.     55. 
A    SHORT    LIFE    OF    CHRIST.      With    Illustrations.     Crown   8vo. 

y.  6d.  ;  gilt  edges,  45.  6d. 
OLD  TESTAMENT  CHARACTERS.     With  Illustrations.    Crown  8vo. 

2,s.  6d. 
LANDMARKS    OF   OLD    TESTAMENT   HISTORY.      Crown    8vo. 

y.  6d. 
THE  ENGLISH  REFORMATION.     Crown  8vo.     3J.  6d. 
ENTERING  ON  LIFE.    A  Book  for  Young  Men.    Crown  8vo.    zs.  6d. 
THE  PRECIOUS  PROMISES.     Crown  8vo.     zs. 


A  SELECT/ON  OF  WORKS 


GOLD  DUST  :  a  Collection  of  Golden  Counsels  for  the  Sancti- 
fication  of  Daily  Life,  Translated  and  abridged  from  the  French  by 
E.L.E.E.  Edited  by  Charlotte  M.  Yonge.  Parts  L  11.  Ill, 
Small  Pocket  Volumes,  Cloth,  gilt,  each  is.  Parts  I.  and  II,  in  One 
Volume,     IS.  6d.     Parts  I,,  II.,  and  III,  in  One  Volume,     2s. 

*.^*  The  two  first  parts  in  One  Volume,  large  type,  iSmo.  cloth,  gilt.  2s.  6d. 
Parts  I.  II,  and  III,  are  also  supplied,  bound  in  white  cloth,  with  red 
edges,  in  box,  price  35, 

Gore.— Works  by  the  Rev.  Charles  Gore,  M.A.,  D.D.,  Canon 
of  Westminster. 
THE  MINISTRY  OF  THE  CHRISTIAN  CHURCH,     8vo.     10s.  6d. 
ROMAN  CATHOLIC  CLAIMS.     Crown  Svo.     3s.  6d. 

GREAT    TRUTHS     OF    THE    CHRISTIAN    RELIGION. 

Edited  by  the  Rev,  W.  U,  Richards,     Small  Svo.     2s. 

HaU.— Works  by  the  Right  Rev.  A.  C.  A.  Hall,  D.D.,  Bishop 
of  Vermont. 
THE  VIRGIN    MOTHER:    Retreat  Addresses    on    the    Life  of   the 
Blessed  Virgin  Mary  as  told  in   the  Gospels,      With  an  appended 
Essay  on  the  Virgin  Birth  of  our  Lord.     Crown  Svo.     4^,  6d. 
CHRIST'S  TEMPTATION  AND  OURS.     Crown  Svo.     35.  6d. 

HalL— THE  KENOTIC  THEORY.  Considered  with  Parti- 
cular Reference  to  its  Anglican  Forms  and  Arguments.  By  the  Rev. 
Francis  J,  Hall,  D.D.,  Instructor  of  Dogmatic  Theology  in  the 
Western  Theological  Seminary,  Chicago,  Illinois.     Crown  Svo.     y. 

HALLOWING  OF  SORROW,  THE.  By  E,  R.  With  a  Pre- 
face by  H,  S,  Holland,  M,A.,  Canon  and  Precentor  of  St.  Paul's. 
Small  Svo.     2s. 

Harrison. — Works  by  the  Rev.  Alexander  J.  Harrison,  B.D., 
Lecturer  of  the  Christian  Evidence  Society. 
PROBLEMS  OF  CHRISTIANITY  AND  SCEPTICISM.     CrownSvo. 

js.  6d. 
THE  CHURCH   IN   RELATION  TO  SCEPTICS  :  a  Conversational 

Guide  to  Evidential  Work.     Crown  Svo.     y.  6d. 
THE  REPOSE  OF  FAITH,  IN  VIEW  OF  PRESENT  DAY  DIFFI- 
CULTIES.    Crown  Svo.     -js.  6d. 

Hatch.— THE     ORGANIZATION     OF     THE     EARLY 

CHRISTIAN  CHURCHES,  Being  the  Bampton  Lectures  for  1880. 
By  EDViriN  Hatch,  M.A.,  D,D.,  late  Reader  in  Ecclesiastical  History 
in  the  University  of  Oxford.     Svo.   $s. 

Heygate.— THE  MANUAL  :  a  Book  of  Devotion.  Adapted  for 
General  Use,  By  the  Rev.  W,  E,  Heygate,  M,A,,  Rector  of  Brigh- 
stone.  xSmo.  cloth  limp,  is.  ;  boards,  u,  3d.  Cheap  Edition,  6d. 
Small  Svo.     Large  Type,  xs,  6d. 


IN  THEOLOGICAL  LITERATURE. 


Holland. — Works  by  the  Rev.  Henry  Scott  Holland,  M.A., 
Canon  and  Precentor  of  St.  Paul's. 

GOD'S  CITY  AND  THE  COMING  OF  THE  KINGDOM.  Cr.  8vo. 
3s.  6d. 

PLEAS  AND  CLAIMS  FOR  CHRIST.     Crown  Svo.     3s.  6(i. 

CREED  AND  CHARACTER  :  Sermons.     Crown  Svo.     3s.  6d. 

ON  BEHALF  OF  BELIEF.     Sermons.     Crown  Svo.     3s.  6d. 

CHRIST  OR  ECCLESIASTES.     Sermons.     Crown  Svo.     2s.  6d. 

LOGIC  AND  LIFE,  with  other  Sermons.     Crown  Svo.     3s.  6d. 

HollingS.— Works  by  the  Rev.  G.  S.  HOLLINGS,  Mission  Priest  of 
the  Society  of  St.  John  the  Evangelist,  Cowley,  Oxford. 

THE  HEAVENLY  STAIR ;  or,  A  Ladder  of  the  Love  of  God  for  Sinners. 

Crown  Svo,     3s.  6d. 
PORTA  REGALIS  ;  or,  Considerations  on  Prayer.    Crown  Svo.  limp  cloth, 

\s.  6d.  net ;  cloth  boards,  2S.  net. 

MEDITATIONS  ON  THE  DIVINE  LIFE,  THE  BLESSED  SACRA- 
MENT, AND  THE  TRANSFIGURATION.     Crown  Svo.     3s.  6d. 

CONSIDERATIONS  ON  THE  SPIRITUAL  LIFE.  Suggested  by 
Passages  in  the  Collects  for  the  Sundays  in  Lent.     Crown  Svo.    2s.  6d. 

CONSIDERATIONS  ON  THE  Vl^ISDOM  OF  GOD.     Crown  Svo.    4s. 

PARADOXES  OF  THE  LOVE  OF  GOD,  especially  as  they  are  seen  in 

the  way  of  the  Evangelical  Counsels.     Crown  Svo.    45. 
ONE  BORN  OF  THE  SPIRIT  ;  or,  the  Unification  of  our  Life  in  God. 

Crown  Svo.    3s.  6d. 

Hutchings.— Works  by  the  Ven.  W.  H.  HUTCHINGS,  M.A.  Arch- 
deacon of  Cleveland,  Canon  of  York,  Rector  of  Kirby 
Misperton,  and  Rural  Dean  of  Malton. 

SERMON  SKETCHES  from  some  of  the  Sunday  Lessons  throughout 
the  Church's  Year.      Vols.  I  and  II.     Crown  Svo.     5J.  each. 

THE  LIFE  OF  PRAYER  :  a  Course  of  Lectures  delivered  in  All  Saints 
Church,  Margaret  Street,  during  Lent.     Crown  Svo.    4s.  6d. 

THE  PERSON  AND  WORK  OF  THE  HOLY  GHOST  :  a  Doctrinal 
and  Devotional  Treatise.     Crown  Svo.    4s.  6d. 

SOME  ASPECTS  OF  THE  CROSS.     Crown  Svo.    4s.  6d. 

THE  MYSTERY  OF  THE  TEMPTATION.     Lent  Lectures  delivered  a 
St.  Mary  Magdalene,  Paddington.     Crown  Svo.    4s.  6d. 
A2 


lo  A  SELECTION  OF  WORKS 

Hutton.— THE    CHURCH   OF  THE    SIXTH    CENTURY. 

Six  Chapters  in  Ecclesiastical  History.  By  William  Holden 
Hutton,  B.D.,  Birkbeck  Lecturer  in  Ecclesiastical  History,  Trinity 
College,  Cambridge.      With  ii  Illustratio?is.     Crown  8vo.     6s. 

Hutton.— THE  SOUL  HERE  AND  HEREAFTER.  By  the 
Rev.  R.  E.  Hutton,  Chaplain  of  St.  Margaret's,  East  Grinstead. 
Crown  8vo.     6s. 

INHERITANCE  OF  THE  SAINTS  ;  or,  Thoughts  on  the 
Communion  of  Saints  and  the  Life  of  the  World  to  come.  Col- 
lected chiefly  from  English  Writers  by  L.  P.  With  a  Preface  by  the 
Rev.  Henry  Scott  Holland,  M.A,  Seventh  Edition.  Crown  Zvo. 
ys.  6d. 

Jameson. — Works  by  Mrs.  Jameson. 

SACRED  AND  LEGENDARY  ART,  containing  Legends  of  the  Angels 

and  Archangels,  the  Evangelists,  the  Apostles.     With  19  Etchings  and 

187  Woodcuts.     2  vols.     Svo.     20s.  net. 
LEGENDS  OF  THE  MONASTIC   ORDERS,  as  represented  in  the 

Fine  Arts.     With  11  Etchings  and  88  Woodcuts.     2>vo.     \qs.  net. 
LEGENDS  OF  THE  MADONNA,  OR  BLESSED  VIRGIN  MARY. 

With  27  Etchings  and  165  Woodcuts.    Zvo.     \os.  net. 
THE  HISTORY  OF  OUR   LORD,  as  exemplified  in  Works  of  Art. 

Commenced  by  the  late  Mrs.  Jameson  ;  continued  and  completed  by 

Lady  Eastlake.     With  31  Etchings  and  281  Woodcuts.     2   Vols. 

Svo.     20s.  net. 
Jennings.— ECCLES I A    ANGLICAN  A.      A    History    of   the 

Church  of  Christ  in  England  from  the  Earliest  to  the  Present  Times. 

By  the  Rev.  Arthur  Charles  Jennings,  M.A.     Crown  Svo.    7s.  6d. 

Jukes.— Works  by  ANDREW  JUKES. 

THE  NEW  MAN  AND  THE  ETERNAL  LIFE.  Notes  on  the 
Reiterated  Amens  of  the  Son  of  God.     Crown  Svo.     6s. 

THE  NAMES  OF  GOD  IN  HOLY  SCRIPTURE  :  a  Revelation  of 
His  Nature  and  Relationships.     Crown  Svo.     4^.  6d. 

THE  TYPES  OF  GENESIS.     Crown  Svo.     ys.  6d. 

THE  SECOND  DEATH  AND  THE  RESTITUTION  OF  ALL 
THINGS.     Crown  Svo.     3s.  6d. 

THE  ORDER  AND  CONNEXION  OF  THE  CHURCH'S  TEACH- 
ING, as  set  forth  in  the  arrangement  of  the  Epistles  and  Gospels 
throughout  the  Year.     Crown  Svo.     2s.  6d. 

THE  CHRISTIAN  HOME.     Crown  Svo.     ss.  6d. 


IN  THEOLOGICAL  LITERATURE. 


Enoz  Little.— Works  by  W.  J.  Knox   Little,   M.A.,   Canon 
Residentiary  of  Worcester,  and  Vicar  of  Hoar  Cross. 

THE  PERFECT  LIFE  :  Sermons.     Crown  8vo.     7s.  6d. 

CHARACTERISTICS  AND  MOTIVES  OF  THE  CHRISTIAN 
LIFE.  Ten  Sermons  preached  in  jManchester  Cathedral,  in  Lent  and 
Advent.     Crown  8vo.     zs.  6d. 

SERMONS  PREACHED  FOR  THE  MOST  PART  IN  MANCHES- 
TER.    Crown  Bvo.     y.  6d. 

THE  MYSTERY  OF  THE  PASSION  OF  OUR  MOST  HOLY 
REDEEMER.     Crown  Bvo.     zs.  6d. 

THE  LIGHT  OF  LIFE.  Sermons  preached  on  Various  Occasions. 
Crown  Bvo.     3^.  6d. 

SUNLIGHT  AND  SHADOW  IN  THE  CHRISTIAN  LIFE. 
Sermons  preached  for  the  most  part  in  America.     Crown  Bvo.     3J,  6d. 


Lear. — Works  by,  and  Edited  by,  H.  L.  Sidney  Lear. 

FOR  DAYS  AND  YEARS.  A  book  containing  a  Text,  Short  Reading, 
and  Hymn  for  Every  Day  in  the  Church's  Year.  i6mo.  zs.  6d.  Also  a 
Cheap  Edition,  jfimo.    u. ;  orclothgilt,  xs.  6d. ;  or  with  red  borders,  2s.  6d. 

FIVE  MINUTES.  Daily  Readings  of  Poetry.  z6mo.  3J.  6d.  Also  a 
Cheap  Edition,  2'2mo.     is.;  or  cloth  gilt,  is.  6d. 

WEARINESS.  A  Book  for  the  Languid  and  Lonely.  Large  Type. 
Small  Bvo.     55. 

JOY :  A  FRAGMENT.  With  a  shght  sketch  of  the  Author's  life.  Small 
Bvo.     2s.  6d. 


CHRISTIAN  BIOGRAPHIES.     Nine  Vols.     Crown  Bvo.     ^s.  6d.  each. 

The  Revival  of  Priestly  Life 
IN  THE  Seventeenth  Century 


Madame  Louise  de  France, 
Daughter  of  Louis  XV.,  known 
also  as  the  Mother  T^rese  de 
St.  Augustin, 


IN  France. 
A    Christian    Painter    of   the 


A  Dominican  Artist  :  a  Sketch  of  ■  Ninftfknth  rirxTTTTPv 
the  Life  of  the  Rev.  Pere  Besson,  I  nineteenth  Century. 
of  the  Order  of  St.  Dominic.  Bossuet  AND   his   Contempora 


Henri     Perreyve.       By     Pere 

Gratry. 
St.  Francis  de  Sales,  Bishop  and 

Prince  of  Geneva. 


RIES. 

Fj^nelon,  Archbishop   of  Cam- 

BRAI. 

Henri  Dominique  Lacordaire. 
[continued. 


12  A  SELECTION  OF  WORKS 

Lear. —  Works    by,  and  Edited    by,   H.   L.   Sidney   Lear  — 

continued. 
DEVOTIONAL  WORKS.     Edited  by  H.   L.   Sidney  Lear.     New  and 

Uniform  Editions.     Nine  Vols.     i6mo.     zs.  6d.  each. 
F^nelon's  Spiritual  Letters  to    i     The  Hidden  Life  of  the  Soul. 

^^^*  The  Light  of  the  Conscience. 

F^nelon's  Spiritual  Letters  to  Also   Cheap  Edition,   z^mo,    6d. 

Women,  '         cloth  limp ;  and  xs.  cloth  boards. 

Self-Renunciation.       From   the 


A  Selection  from  the  Spiritual 
Letters  of  St.  Francis  de 
Sales.  Also  Cheap  Edition,  ^^zmo, 
6d.  cloth  limp  ;  xs.  cloth  boards. 

The  Spirit  of   St.   Francis  de 


French. 

St.  Francis  de  Sales'   Of  the 
Love  of  God, 

Selections       from       Pascal's 


Sales.  '        '  Thoughts.' 

Lepine.— THE  MINISTERS  OF  JESUS  CHRIST  :  a  Biblical 
Study,  By  J,  Foster  Lepine,  Curate  of  St.  Paul's,  Maidstone. 
Crozmi  Svo.     c^s. 

Liddon. — Works  by  Henry  Parry  Liddon,  D,D.,  D.C.L.,LL.D. 

SERMONS  ON  SOME  WORDS  OF  ST.  PAUL,     Crown  Svo.     5^. 
SERMONS    PREACHED    ON    SPECIAL    OCCASIONS.  i'86o-i889. 

Crown  Svo.     55. 
EXPLANATORY  ANALYSIS   OF  ST.  PAUL'S  FIRST   EPISTLE 

TO  TIMOTHY.     Svo.     7s.  6d. 
CLERICAL  LIFE  AND  WORK  :  Sermons.     Crown  Svo.     55. 
ESSAYS  AND  ADDRESSES  :  Lectures  on  Buddhism— Lectures  on  the 

Life  of  St.  Paul — Papers  on  Dante.     Crown  Svo.     ^s. 
EXPLANATORY  ANALYSIS   OF    ST.    PAUL'S   FIRST  EPISTLE 

TO  TIMOTHY.     Svo.     7s.  6d. 
EXPLANATORY    ANALYSIS    OF    PAUL'S    EPISTLE    TO    THE 

ROMANS.     Svo.     14J. 
SERMONS  ON  OLD  TESTAMENT  SUBJECTS.     CrownSvo.     55. 
SERMONS  ON  SOME  WORDS  OF  CHRIST,     Crown  Svo.     5^. 

THE  DIVINITY  OF  OUR  LORD  AND  SAVIOUR  JESUS  CHRIST. 
Being  the  Bampton  Lectures  for  1866.     Crown  Svo.     55. 

ADVENT  IN  ST.  PAUL'S.  Two  Vols.  Crown  Svo.  y.  Sd.  each. 
Cheap  Edition  in  one  Volume.     Crown  Svo.     t^s. 

CHRISTMASTIDE  IN  ST,  PAUL'S,     Crown  Svo.     5s. 

PASSIONTIDE  SERMONS.     Crown  Svo.     5^. 

EASTER  IN  ST.  PAUL'S.  Sermons  bearing  chiefly  on  the  Resurrec- 
tion of  our  Lord.  Two  Vols.  Crown  Svo.  y.  6d.  each.  Cheap 
Editio7t  in  one  Volume.     Crown  Svo.     5J. 

SERMONS  PREACHED  BEFORE  THE  UNIVERSITY  OF 
OXFORD,  Two  Vols.  Crown  Svo.  y.  6d.  each.  Cheap  Edition  in 
one  Volume.     Crown  Svo.     5^. 

[continued. 


IN  THEOLOGICAL  LITERATURE.  13 

Liddon.— Works    by    Henry  Parry  Liddon,   D.D.,   D.C.L., 

LL.  D. — conti7iued. 

THE  MAGNIFICAT.     Sermons  in  St.  Paul's.     Crown  8vo.    2s.  6d. 

SOME  ELEMENTS  OF  RELIGION.  Lent  Lectures.  Small  8vo. 
2S.  6d.     [The  Crown  8vo.  Edition  (5^.)  may  still  be  had.] 

SELECTIONS  FROM  THE  WRITINGS  OF.     Crown  Bvo.     35.  6d. 

MAXIMS  AND  GLEANINGS.     Crown  i6mo.     is. 

Linklater.— TRUE  LIMITS  OF  RITUAL  IN  THE  CHURCH. 
Edited  by  Rev.  Robert  Linklater,  D.D.,  Vicar  of  Stroud  Green. 
Crown  8vo.  55. 
Contents. — Preface— Introductory  Essay,  by  the  Rev.  Robert  Link- 
later,  D.D. — The  Ornaments  Rubric,  by  J.  T.  Micklethwaite, 
V.  P.S.A. — The  CathoUc  Principle  of  Conformity  in  Divine  Worship, 
by  the  Rev.  C.  F.  G.  Turner— A  Plea  for  Reasonableness,  by  the  Rev. 
John  Wylde— Intelligible  Ritual,  by  the  Rev.  Henry  Arnott — The 
English  Liturgy,  by  the  Rev.  T.  A.  Lacey— Eucharistic  Ritual,  by  the 
Rev.  W.  F.  Cobb,  D.D. — Suggestions  for  a  Basis  of  Agreement  in 
Matters  Liturgical  and  Ceremonial,  by  the  Rev.  H.  E.  Hall. 

Luckock.— Works  by  Herbert   Mortimer  Luckock,  D.D., 

Dean  of  Lichfield. 

THE  HISTORY  OF  MARRIAGE,  JEWISH  AND  CHRISTIAN,  IN 
RELATION  TO  DIVORCE  AND  CERTAIN  FORBIDDEN 
DEGREES.     Second  Edition.     Crown  8vo.     6s. 

AFTER    DEATH.      An   Examination   of   the  Testimony  of  Primitive 

Times  respecting  the  State  of  the  Faithful  Dead,  and  their  Relationship 

to  the  Living.     Crown  8vo.     y.  6d. 
THE     INTERMEDIATE     STATE      BETWEEN     DEATH     AND 

JUDGMENT.     Being  a  Sequel  to  After  Death.     Crown  8vo.     35.  6d. 
FOOTPRINTS  OF  THE  SON  OF  MAN,  as  traced  by  St.  Mark.     Being 

Eighty  Portions  for  Private  Study,  Family  Reading,  and  Instruction 

in  Church.     Crown  8vo.     y.  6d. 

FOOTPRINTS  OF  THE  APOSTLES,  as  traced  by  St.  Luke  in  the 

Acts.'    Being   Sixty   Portions   for    Private   Study,    and  Instruction  in 

Church.     A  Sequel  to  '  Footprints  of  the  Son  of  Man,  as  traced  by 

St.  Mark.'     Two  Vols.     Cro^vn  8vo.     12s. 
THE  DIVINE  LITURGY.      Being  the  Order  for  Holy  Communion, 

Historically,  Doctrinally,  and  Devotionally  set  forth,  in  Fifty  Portions. 

Crown  8vo.     3J-.  6d. 
STUDIES    IN   THE    HISTORY   OF   THE    BOOK    OF   COMMON 

PRAYER.      The   AngUcan   Reform— The  Puritan  Innovations— The 

Elizabethan  Reaction — The  Caroline  Settlement.     With  Appendices. 

Crown  8vo.     3J-.  dd. 
THE    BISHOPS    IN   THE  TOWER.     A   Record  of  Stirring   Events 

affecting  the  Church  and  Nonconformists  from  the  Restoration  to  the 

Revolution.     Crown  8vo.     35.  td. 


14  A  SELECTION  OF  WORKS 

MacColL— Works  by  the  Rev.  MALCOLM  MacColl,  D.D.,  Canon 
Residentiary  of  Ripen. 
THE  REFORMATION  SETTLEMENT :    Examined  in  the  Light  of 

History  and  Law.     With  an  Introductory  Letter  to  the  Right  Hon. 

W.  V.  Harcourt,  M.P.     Crown  ^vo. 
CHRISTIANITY  IN   RELATION   TO  SCIENCE  AND  MORALS. 

Crown  8vo.     6s. 
LIFE  HERE  AND  HEREAFTER  :  Sermons.     Crown  Svo.     7s.  6d. 
Mason.— Works  by  A.  J.  Mason,  D.D.,  Lady  Margaret  Professor 

of  Divinity  in  the  University  of  Cambridge  and  Canon  of  Canterbury. 
THE   CONDITIONS   OF    OUR    LORDS    LIFE    UPON    EARTH. 

Being  the  Bishop  Paddock  Lectures,  1896.     To  which  is  prefixed  part 

of  a  First  Professorial  Lecture  at  Cambridge.     Crown  Svo.     e,s. 
THE  PRINCIPLES  OF  ECCLESIASTICAL  UNITY.     Four  Lectures 

delivered  in  St.  Asaph  Cathedral.     Crown  Svo.     35,  6d. 
THE  FAITH  OF  THE  GOSPEL.     A  Manual  of  Christian  Doctrine. 

Crown  Svo.     ys.  6d.     Cheap  Edition.     Crown  Svo.    35.  6d. 
THE  RELATION  OF  CONFIRMATION  TO  BAPTISM.    As  taught 

in  Holy  Scripture  and  the  Fathers.     Crown  Svo.    js,  6d. 

Maturin.— Works  by  the  Rev.  B.  W.  Maturin. 

SOME    PRINCIPLES   AND    PRACTICES    OF  THE   SPIRITUAL. 

LIFE.     Crowfi  Svo.     4s.  6d. 
PRACTICAL   STUDIES   ON   THE   PARABLES  OF  OUR  LORD. 

Crown  Svo.     55-. 

Medd.— THE  PRIEST  TO  THE  ALTAR  ;  or,  Aids  to  the 
Devout  Celebration  of  Holy  Communion,  chiefly  after  the  Ancient 
English  Use  of  Sarum.  By  Peter  Goldsmith  Medd,  M.A.,  Canon 
of  St.  Alban's.     Fourth  Edition,  revised  and  enlarged.    Royal  Svo.    15^. 

Meyrick.— THE  DOCTRINE  OF  THE  CHURCH  OF  ENG- 
LAND ON  THE  HOLY  COMMUNION  RESTATED  AS  A 
GUIDE  AT  THE  PRESENT  TIME.  By  the  Rev.  F.  Meyrick, 
M.A,     Crown  Svo.     4^-.  6d. 

Mortimer.— Works  by  the  Rev.  A.  G.  Mortimer,  D.D.,  Rector 
of  St.  Mark's,  Philadelphia. 


JESUS  AND  THE  RESURRECTION 
Thirty  Addresses  for  Good  Friday  and 
Easter.     Crown  2>vo.     55. 

CATHOLIC     FAITH    AND     PRAC 


THE  LAWS   OF    PENITENCE  :  Ad- 
dresses on  the  Words  of  our  Lord  from 
the  Cross.     i6mo.     is.  6d. 
SERMONS    IN    MINIATURE    FOR 
TICE  •  ^  A  ^  Manual  "o'f  ^The  T^^'  '  EXTEMPORE        PREACHERS  : 

Two    Parts.    Crown  Svo.    Sold  sepai  I  Sketches  for  Every  Sunday  and  Holy 

ratPlv      Part  T    n<:  f,d      Pp,rf  tt   nc-  Day  of  the  Christian  Year.   Cr.Zvo.  ds, 

MTrrp^T^nT^^^i^TTATrnM     Qu'T:         NOTES    ON     THE    SEVEN    PENI- 
HELPS  TO  MEDITATION:  Sketches  TENTIAL  PSALMS,   chiefly  from 

for  Every  Day  in  the  Year.  Patristic  Sources.     Fcp.  8w.  3^.  6rf. 


Vol.  I.  Advent  to  Trinity.  %vo.  -js.Gd. 
Vol.  II.  Trinity  to  Advent.  Zvo.-js.6d. 

STORIES  FROM  GENESIS  :  Sermons 
for  Children.     Crown  Svo.     ^s, 

THE  LAWS  OF  HAPPINESS;  or, 
The  Beatitudes  as  teaching  our  Duty 
to  God,  Self,  and  our  Neighbour. 
1 8mo.     2S. 


THE  SEVEN  LAST  WORDS  OF 
OUR  MOST  HOLY  REDEEMER: 
with  Meditations  on  some  Scenes  in 
His  Passion.     Crown  Svo.     5s. 

LEARN  OF  JESUS  CHRIST  TO 
DIE  :  Addresses  on  the  Words  of  our 
Lord  from  the  Cross,  taken  as  Teach- 
ing the  way  of  Preparation  for  Death. 
i6mo.     2S. 


ESSAYS,  HISTORICAL  AND  THEO- 
LOGICAL.    Two  Vols.     8vo.     24s. 

EIGHT  LECTURES  ON  MIRACLES. 
Being  the  Bampton  Lectures  for  1865. 
Crown  8vo.     ^s.  6d. 

RULING  IDEAS  IN  EARLY  AGES 
AND  THEIR  RELATION  TO 
OLD       TESTAMENT       FAITH. 


IN  THEOLOGICAL  LITERATURE.  15 

Mozley.— Works  by  J.  B.  Mozley,  D.D.,  late  Canon  of  Christ 
Church,  and  Regius  Professor  of  Divinity  at  Oxford. 

SERMONS  PREACHED  BEFORE 
THE  UNIVERSITY  OF  OX- 
FORD, and  on  Various  Occasions. 
Crown  Zvo.     3J.  6<f. 

SERMONS,  PAROCHIAL  AND 
OCCASIONAL.   Crovjnlvo,    zs.6d. 

A  REVIEW  OF  THE  BAPTISMAL 
CONTROVERSY.  Crown  8vo. 
8v0.    6s.  I  ^s.  td. 

Newbolt.— Works  by  the  Rev.  W.  C.  E.  Newbolt,  M.A.,  Canon 
and  Chancellor  of  St.  Paul's  Cathedral. 
RELIGION.      Crown   8vo.      55.      {The   Oxford  Library  oj    Practical 

Theology. ) 
PRIESTLY  IDEALS  ;  being  a  Course  of  Practical  Lectures  delivered  in 

St.  Paul's  Cathedral  to  '  Our  Society'  and  other  Clergy,  in  Lent,  1898. 

Crown  8vo.     y.  6d. 
THE  GOSPEL  OF  EXPERIENCE  ;  or,   the  Witness  of  Human  Life 

to  the  truth   of    Revelation.      Being  the   Boyle   Lectures  for    1895. 

Crown  8vo.     55. 
COUNSELS  OF  FAITH  AND  PRACTICE:  being  Sermons  preached 

on  various  occasions.     New  and  Enlarged  Edition.     Crown  8vo.     55. 
SPECULUM   SACERDOTUM  ;    or,  the  Divine  Model  of  the  Priestly 

Life.     Crown  8vo.     js.  6d. 
THE  FRUIT   OF  THE  SPIRIT.      Being  Ten  Addresses  bearing  on 

the  Spiritual  Life.    Crown  8vo.     2s.  6d. 
THE  MAN  OF  GOD.     Small  8vo.     \s.  6d. 
THE  PRAYER  BOOK  :  Its  Voice  and  Teaching.     Crown  8vo.     2J.  6d. 

Newman. — Works  by  John  Henry  Newman,  B.D.,  sometime 
Vicar  of  St.  Mary's,  Oxford. 

LETTERS  AND  CORRESPONDENCE  OF  JOHN  HENRY  NEW- 
MAN DURING  HIS  LIFE  IN  THE  ENGLISH  CHURCH.  With 
a  brief  Autobiography.  Edited,  at  Cardinal  Newman's  request,  by 
Anne  Mozley.     2  vols.     Crown  8vo.     js. 

PAROCHIAL  AND  PLAIN  SERMONS.  Eight  Vols.  Cabinet  Edition. 
Crown  8vo.     5 J.  each.     Cheaper  Edition.     3^.  6d.  each. 

SELECTION,  ADAPTED  TO  THE  SEASONS  OF  THE  ECCLE- 
SIASTICAL YEAR,  from  the  '  Parochial  and  Plain  Sermons,' 
Cabinet  Edition.     Crown  8vo.     ^s.     Cheaper  Edition,     y.  6d, 

FIFTEEN  SERMONS  PREACHED  BEFORE  THE  UNIVERSITY 
OF  OXFORD  Cabinet  Edition.  Crown  8vo.  55.  Cheaper  Edition. 
3J.  6d. 

SERMONS  BEARING  UPON  SUBJECTS  OF  THE  DAY.  Cabinet 
Edition.     Crown  8vo.     5^.     Cheaper  Edition.     Crown  8vo.     3J.  bd. 

LECTURES  ON  THE  DOCTRINE  OF  JUSTIFICATION.  Cabinet 
Edition.     Crown  8vo.     51.     Cheaper  Edition,     y.  6d. 

*»*  A  Complete  List  of  Cardinal  Newman's  Works  can  be  had  on  Application. 


i6  A  SELECTION  OF  WORKS 

Osborne.— Works  by  Edward  Osborne,  Mission  Priest  of  the 

Society  of  St.  John  the  Evangelist,  Cowley,  Oxford. 

THE  CHILDREN'S  SAVIOUR.     Instructions  to  Children  on  the  Life 
of  Our  Lord  and  Saviour  Jesus  Christ.     Illustrated.     i6mo.     2s.  6d. 

THE  SAVIOUR   KING.      Instructions  to  Children  on  Old  Testament 
Types  and  Illustrations  of  the  Life  of  Christ.  Illustrated.  i6mo.  2s.  6d. 

THE  CHILDREN'S  FAITH.    Instructions  to  Children  on  the  Apostles' 
Creed.     Illustrated,     xdmo.     2s.  6d. 

Ottley.— ASPECTS  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT:  being  the 
Bampton  Lectures  for  1897.  By  Robert  Lawrence  Ottley,  M.A., 
Vicar  of  Winterbourne  Bassett,  Wilts  ;  sometime  Principal  of  the 
Pusey  House.     Svo.     Nezv  and  Cheaper  Edition,     'js.  6d. 

XTbe  ©jfort)  Xtbrat^  ot  practical  XTbeolo^^* 

PRODUCED   UNDER  THE  EDITORSHIP  OF 

The  Rev.  W.  C.  E.  Newbolt,  M.A.,  Canon  and  Chancellor  of 

St.  Paul's,  and  the  Rev.  F.  E.  Brightman,  M.A.,  Librarian 

of  the  Pusey  House,  Oxford. 

The  Price  of  each  Volume  will  be  Five  Shillings. 

The  following  is  a  list  of  Volumes  as  at  present  arranged  : — 

1.  RELIGION.     By  the  Rev.  W.  C.  E.  Newbolt,  M.A.,  Canon  and 

Chancellor  of  St.  Paul's.     Crown  Svo.     55. 

2.  BAPTISM.     By  the  Rev.  Darwell  Stone,  M.A.,  Principal  of  the 

Missionary  College,  Dorchester.    Crown  8vo.     k,s.       [I71  the  press. 

3.  CONFIRMATION.      By  the  Right  Rev.  A.  C.  A.   Hall,  D.D., 

Bishop  of  Vermont. 

4.  HOLY  MATRIMONY.     By  the  Rev.  W.  J.  Knox  Little,  M.A., 

Canon  of  Worcester. 

5.  THE  HOLY  COMMUNION.     By  the  Rev.  F.  W.  Puller,  M.A., 

Mission  Priest  of  St.  John  Evangelist,  Cowley. 

6.  THE  PRAYER  BOOK.     By  the  Rev.  Leighton  Pullan,  M.A., 

Fellow  of  St.  John's  College,  Oxford. 

7.  RELIGIOUS  CEREMONIAL.     By  the  Rev.   F.  E.   Brightman, 

M.A.,  Librarian  of  the  Pusey  House,  Oxford. 

8.  PRAYER.     By  the  Rev.  A.  J.  Worlledge,  M.A.,  Canon  of  Truro. 

9.  VISITATION  OF  THE  SICK.     By  the  Rev.  E.  F.  Russell,  M.A., 

St.  Alban's,  Holborn. 
Confession  and  Absolution.  I  Devotional  Books  and  Reading. 
Fasting  and  Almsgiving.        |  Ordination. 
Retreats,  Missions,  Etc     I  Foreign  Missions. 
Church  Work.  The  Bible. 


IN  THEOLOGICAL  LITERATURE.  17 

OUTLINES  OF  CHURCH  TEACHING  :  a  Series  of  Instruc- 
tions for  the  Sundays  and  chief  Holy  Days  of  the  Christian  Year.  For 
the  Use  of  Teachers.  By  C.  C.  G.  With  Preface  by  the  Very  Rev. 
Francis  Paget,  D.  D.  ,  Dean  of  Christ  Church,  Oxford.  Crown  Zvo. 
35.  6d. 

Oxenham.— THE  VALIDITY  OF  PAPAL  CLAIMS  :  Lectures 
delivered  in  Rome.  By  F.  Nutcombe  Oxenham,  D.D.,  English 
Chaplain  at  Rome.  "With  a  Letter  by  His  Grace  the  Archbishop  of 
York.     Crown  8vo.     2s.  6d. 

Paget.— Works  by  Francis  Paget,  D.D.,  Dean  of  Christ  Church. 

STUDIES  IN  THE  CHRISTIAN  CHARACTER  :  Sermons.    With  an 

Introductory  Essay.     Crown  8vo.     6s.  6d. 
THE  SPIRIT  OF  DISCIPLINE  :  Sermons.     Crown  8vo.     6s.  6d. 

FACULTIES    AND    DIFFICULTIES    FOR     BELIEF    AND    DIS- 
BELIEF.    Crown  8vo.     6s.  6d. 

THE  HALLOWING  OF  WORK.     Addresses  given  at  Eton,  January 
16-18,  1888.     Small  8vo.     25. 

PercivaL— SOME   HELPS   FOR  SCHOOL  LIFE.     Sermons 

preached  at  Clifton  College,  1862-1879.  By  J.  Percival,  D.D.,  LL.D., 
Lord  Bishop  of  Hereford.  New  Edition,  with  New  Preface.  Crown 
8vo.     3J.  6d. 

PercivaL— THE  INVOCATION  OF  SAINTS.  Treated  Theo- 
logically and  Historically.  By  HENRY  R.  Percival,  M.A.,  D.D., 
Author  of  'A  Digest  of  Theology,'  'The  Doctrine  of  the  Episcopal 
Church,'  etc.     Crown  8vo.    5J-. 

POCKET  MANUAL  OF    PRAYERS    FOR  THE   HOURS, 

Etc.     With  the  Collects  from  the  Prayer  Book,     Royal  op.mo.    xs. 

PoweU.— THE    PRINCIPLE     OF    THE     INCARNATION. 

With  especial  Reference  to  the  Relation  between  our  Lord's  Divine 
Omniscience  and  His  Human  Consciousness.  By  the  Rev.  H.  C. 
Powell,  M.A,  of  Oriel  College,  Oxford  ;  Rector  of  Wylye  and  Pre- 
bendary of  Salisbury  Cathedral.     8vo.     \6s. 

PRACTICAL  REFLECTIONS.  By  a  Clergyman.  With 
Prefaces  by  H.  P.  Liddon,  D.D.,  D.C.L.,  and  the  Lord  Bishop  of 
Lincoln.     Crown  8vo. 


The  Book  of  Genesis.    45.  6d. 
The  Psalms.    5^. 
Isaiah.    4?.  6d. 


The  Minor  Prophets.    4j.  6d. 
The  Holy  Gospels.    4^.  6d. 
Acts  to  Revelation.    6s. 


PRIEST'S  PRAYER  BOOK  (THE).  Containing  Private 
Prayers  and  Intercessions  ;  Occasional,  School,  and  Parochial  Offices  ; 
Offices  for  the  Visitation  of  the  Sick,  with  Notes,  Readings,  Collects, 
Hymns,  Litanies,  etc.  With  a  brief  Pontifical.  By  the  late  Rev.  R.  F. 
LiTTLEDALE,  LL.D.,  D.C.L.,  and  Rev.  J.  Edward  Vaux,  M.A., 
F.S.A.     New  Edition,  Revised,     loth  Thousand.     Post8vo.     6s.  6d. 


i8  A  SELECTION  OF  WORKS 


Pullan.— LECTURES  ON  RELIGION.    By  the  Rev.  Leighton 

PULLAN,  M.A.,  Fellow  of  St.  John's  College,  Lecturer  in  Theology  at 
Oriel  and  Queen's  Colleges,  Oxford.     Crowti  8vo.     6s. 

Pusey.—SPIRITUAL  LETTERS  OF  EDWARD  BOUVERIE 
PUSEY,  D.D.  Edited  and  prepared  for  publication  by  the  Rev.  J.  O. 
Johnston,  M.A.,  Principal  of  the  Theological  College,  Cuddesdon  ; 
and  the  Rev.  W.  C.  E.  Newbolt,  M.A.,  Canon  and  Chancellor  of  St. 
Paul's.     Svo.  I2S.  6d. 

Randolph.— Works  by  B.  W.  Randolph,  M.A.,  Principal  of  the 
Theological  College  and  Hon.  Canon  of  Ely. 

MEDITATIONS  ON  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT  for  Every  Day  in 
the  Year.     Crow?i  Svo.     6s. 

THE  THRESHOLD  OF  THE  SANCTUARY :  being  Short  Chapters 
on  the  Inner  Preparation  for  the  Priesthood.     Crown  Svo.     y.  6d. 

THE  LAW  OF  SINAI  :  being  Devotional  Addresses  on  the  Ten  Com- 
mandments delivered  to  Ordinands.    Crown  Svo.     35.  6d. 

Rede. — Works  by  Wyllys  Rede,  D.D.,  Rector  of  the  Church 
of  the  Incarnation,  and  Canon  of  the  Cathedral,  Atalanta, 
Georgia. 

STRIVING  FOR  THE  MASTERY :  Daily  Lessons  for  Lent.     Cr.  Svo. 

THE  COMMUNION  OF  SAINTS :  a  Lost  Link  in  the  Chain  of  the 
Church's  Creed.  With  a  Preface  by  Lord  Halifax.  Crown  Svo. 
3J.  6d. 

Reynolds.— THE  SUPERNATURAL  IN  NATURE:  A  Veri- 
fication by  Free  Use  of  Science.  By  Joseph  William  Reynolds, 
M.A.,  Late  President  of  Sion  College,  and  Prebendary  of  St.  Paul's 
Cathedral.     New  and  Cheaper  Edition,  Revised.     Crown  Svo.     3^.  6d. 

Sanday.— Works  by  W.  Sanday,  D.D.,  Margaret  Professor  of 
Divinity  and  Canon  of  Christ  Church,  Oxford. 

THE  CONCEPTION  OF  PRIESTHOOD  IN  THE  EARLY  CHURCH 
AND  IN  THE  CHURCH  OF  ENGLAND  :  Four  Sermons. 
Crown  Svo.    3^.  6d. 

INSPIRATION  :  Eight  Lectures  on  the  Early  History  and  Origin  o 
the  Doctrine  of  Biblical  Inspiration.  Being  the  Bampton  Lectures 
for  1893.     New  and  Cheaper  Edition,  with  New  Preface.  Svo.    js.  6d. 

Scudamore.— STEPS  TO  THE  ALTAR:  a  Manual  of  Devotion 
for  the  Blessed  Eucharist.     By  the  Rev.  W.  E.  Scudamore,  M.A. 
Royal  ■^imo.     is. 
On  toned  paper,  with  red  rubrics,  2s:  The  same,  with  Collects,  Epistles,  and 

Gospels,  2S.  6d;  Demy  iSmo.  cloth,  is\  Demy  iSmo.  cloth,  large  type,  xs.  yl\ 

Imperial  ^2mo.  limp  cloth,  6d. 


IN  THEOLOGICAL  LITERATURE,  19 

Simpson— THE  CHURCH  AND  THE  BIBLE.     By  the  Rev. 

W.  J.  Sparrow  Simpson,  M.A.  Vicar  of  St.  Mark's,  Regent's  Park. 
Crown  8vo.  y.  6d. 
MEMOIR  OF  THE  REV.  W.  SPARROW  SIMPSON,  D.D.,  Sub- 
Dean  of  St.  Paul's  Cathedral.  Compiled  and  Edited  by  W.  J. 
Sparrow  Simpson.  With  Portrait  and  other  Illustrations.  Crown 
Svo.    4s.  6d. 

Strange.— INSTRUCTIONS   ON  THE  REVELATION  OF 

ST.  JOHN  THE  DIVINE:  Being  an  attempt  to  make  this  book 
more  intelligible  to  the  ordinary  reader  and  so  to  encourage  the  study 
of  it.  By  Rev.  Cresswell  Strange,  M.  A.,  Vicar  of  Edgbaston,  and 
Honorary  Canon  of  Worcester.     Crown  Svo.     6s. 

Strong.— CHRISTIAN  ETHICS  :  being  the  Bampton  Lectures 
for  1895.  By  Thomas  B.  Strong,  B.D.,  Student  of  Christ  Church, 
Oxford,  and  Examining  Chaplain  to  the  Lord  Bishop  of  Durham. 
New  and  Cheaper  Edition.     Svo.     ys.  6d. 

Tee.— THE  SANCTUARY  OF  SUFFERING.    By  Eleanor 

Tee,  Author  of  'This  Everyday  Life,'  etc.  With  a  Preface  by  the 
Rev.  J.  P.  F.  Davidson,  M.A.,  Vicar  of  St.  Matthias',  Earl's  Court; 
President  of  the  '  Guild  of  All  Souls.'     Crown  Svo.     js.  6d. 

Whishaw.— THE  CHILDREN'S  YEAR-BOOK  OF  PRAYER 

AND  PRAISE.  By  C.  M.  Whishaw,  Compiler  of  '  Being  and 
Doing.'     Crown  Svo.     y.  6d. 

Williams. — Works  by  the  Rev.  Isaac  Williams,  B.D. 

A  DEVOTIONAL    COMMENTARY    ON  THE   GOSPEL   NARRA- 
TIVE.    Eight  Vols.     Crown  Svo.     5^.  each. 

Our  Lord's  Ministry  (Third  Year). 
The  Holy  Week. 
Our  Lord's  Passion. 
Our  Lord's  Resurrection. 
FEMALE    CHARACTERS    OF    HOLY   SCRIPTURE.      A  Series  ot 

Sermons.     Crown  Svo.     ^s. 
THE  CHARACTERS  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT.     Crown  Svo.    sj. 
THE  APOCALYPSE.     With  Notes  and  Reflections.     Crown  Svo.    ks. 
SERMONS  ON  THE  EPISTLES  AND  GOSPELS  FOR  THE  SUN- 
DAYS AND  HOLY  DAYS.      Two  Vols.     Crown  Svo.  5s.  each. 
PLAIN  SERMONS  ON  CATECHISM.     Two  Vols.    Cr.  Svo.    5J.  each. 

Wilson.— THOUGHTS  ON  CONFIRMATION.     By  Rev.  R. 

J,  Wilson,  D.D.,  late  Warden  of  Keble  College.     x6mo.     zs.  6d. 

Wirgman.— Works  by  A.  Theodore  Wirgman,  B.D.,  D.C.L., 
Vice-Provost  of  St.  Mary's  Collegiate  Church,  Port  Eliza- 
beth, South  Africa. 
THE  DOCTRINE  OF  CONFIRMATION.     Croivn  Svo.     -js.  6d. 
THE   CONSTITUTIONAL  AUTHORITY   OF    BISHOPS   IN  THE 
CATHOLIC  CHURCH.    Illustrated  by  the  History  and  Canon  Law 
of  the  Undivided  Church  from  the  Apostolic  Age  to  the  Council  of 
Chalcedon,  A.D.  451.     Crown  Svo,     6s. 


Thoughts  on  the  Study  of  the 

Holy  Gospels. 
A  Harmony  of  the  Four  Gospels. 
Our  Lord's  Nativity. 
Our  Lord's  Ministry  (Second  Year). 


20       A  SELECTION  OF  THEOLOGICAL  WORKS. 

Wood.~THE  STORY  OF  A  SAINTLY  BISHOP'S  LIFE- 
LANCELOT  ANDREWES,  Bishop  of  Winchester,  1555-1626.  By 
Lady  Mary  Wood.     Crown  8vo.     is.  6d. 

Wordsworth.— Works  by  Christopher  Wordsworth,  D.D., 
sometime  Bishop  of  Lincoln. 
THE  HOLY  BIBLE  (the  Old  Testament).     With  Notes,  Introductions, 
and  Index.     Imperial  8vo. 

Vol.  I.  The  Pentateuch.  25J.  Vol.  II.  Joshua  to  Samuel.  15^. 
Vol.  III.  Kings  to  Esther.  15^.  Vol.  IV.  Job  to  Song  of 
Solomon.  25s.  Vol.  V.  Isaiah  to  Ezekiel.  25^.  Vol.  VI. 
Daniel,  Minor  Prophets,  and  Index.    15s. 

Also  supplied  in  12  Parts.     Sold  separately. 
THE  NEW  TESTAMENT,  in  the  Original  Greek.     With  Notes,  Intro- 
ductions, and  Indices.     Imperial  8vo. 

Vol.  I.  Gospels  and  Acts  of  the  Apostles,  zy.  Vol.  II. 
Epistles,  Apocalypse,  and  Indices.     375, 

Also  supplied  in  4  Parts.     Sold  separately, 
A  CHURCH  HISTORY  TO  A.D.  451.     Four  Vols.     Crown  Svo. 

Vol.  I.    To  the  Council  of  NiCiEA,  a.d.  325.      8^.  6d.     Vol.  II. 

From  the  Council  of  Nic^a  to  that  of  Constantinople 

6s.    Vol.  III.   Continuation.    6s.    Vol.  IV.   Conclusion,  To 

THE  Council  of  Chalcedon,  a.d.  451.    6s. 

THEOPHILUS    ANGLICANUS:    a   Manual  of    Instruction    on    the 

Church  and  the  Anglican  Branch  of  it.     izmo.     2s.  6d. 
ELEMENTS    OF    INSTRUCTION    ON    THE    CHURCH.      i6mo. 

xs.  cloth.     6d.  sewed. 
THE  HOLY  YEAR  :  Original  Hymns.    iStno.    2s.6d.and\s.    Limp,6d. 
,,  ,,      With  Music.     Edited  by  W.  H.  Monk.     Square  Svo.  4s.  6d. 

ON  THE  INTERMEDIATE  STATE  OF  THE  SOUL  AFTER 
DEATH.     32mo.     is. 

Wordsworth.— Works   by   John  Wordsworth,   D.D.,   Lord 
Bishop  of  Salisbury. 

THE  EPISCOPATE  OF  CHARLES  WORDSWORTH,  D.D.,  D.C.L., 
Bishop  of  St.  Andrews.     With  Two  Portraits.     Svo.     i^s. 

THE  HOLY  COMMUNION:  Four  Visitation  Addresses.  1891. 
Crown  Svo.     y.  6d. 

THE  ONE  RELIGION  :  Truth,  Holiness,  and  Peace  desired  by  the 
Nations,  and  revealed  by  Jesus  Christ,  Eight  Lectures  delivered  before 
the  University  of  Oxford  in  1881.    Second  Edition.    Crown  Svo.    ^s.  6d. 

UNIVERSITY  SERMONS  ON  GOSPEL  SUBJECTS.  Sm.  Svo.  2s.  6d. 
PRAYERS  FOR  USE  IN  COLLEGE.     i6mo.     xs. 

5000/4/99. 


Printed  by  T.  and  A.  Constable,  Printers  to  Her  Majesty 
at  the  Edinburgh  University  Press. 


Date  Due 


i?fW3HS^ 


